Transcript of seattle-city-council - Seattle City Council Select Committee on Citywide Mandatory Housing Affordability (MHA) 2/25/19

SPEAKER_08

Good afternoon and thank you all for joining us for the 20th meeting of the select committee on the city's mandatory housing affordability program.

We are planning today to do a quick run of show as follows.

We'll hear from the members of the public.

We've got about 20 people who've signed up to give public comment.

And then we will move into a discussion of amendments related to the bill.

There are sort of four different amendment packages that we'll go through related to two of the three bills that we've got in front of us.

One of the three bills does not have any amendments proposed.

And as we go through those discussions, I've grouped the amendments as we discussed into a couple of different options.

Consent agenda amendments and amendments for individual votes.

Central staff will walk us through the consent agenda package and I'll be keeping my head on a swivel to see which of my colleagues might be interested in pulling individual amendments from the consent agenda.

And then we'll take action on the consent agenda, and then individual amendments, and then the bill itself.

And then we'll do the same sequence for the next bill, and then finally for our third bill.

Those three bills today are the citywide main MHA legislation, which amends the Seattle Municipal Code to implement citywide mandatory housing affordability.

The second bill amends the city's comprehensive plan to implement the program.

And then the third bill implements mandatory housing affordability on a TOD site in the Northgate neighborhood.

This is the culmination of more than 200 meetings, 40 council-led meetings, 16 urban design village community design workshops.

The impacts of the proposal were analyzed in both the draft and a final environmental impact statement.

And after a year-long appeal, we are finally here, getting ready to take what I anticipate being a set of final votes out of committee before council final action in about three weeks.

I want to say a big thank you to the members of the public who stayed with us for the four and a half hour public hearing that we held last Thursday and especially to my council colleague Councilmember Gonzalez for chairing that conversation.

I had a chance to review though I wasn't here in person and I'm grateful to you for the the stern hand that you had in the beginning of that meeting to make sure that everything stayed on time and on agenda.

And it did break the record.

We had previously set at four hours and 22 minutes, so this four hours and 25 minutes means that you are now the record holder of the longest MAJ-related public hearing.

I'd like to remind my colleagues that after we conclude public comments, central staff and the clerk will be tallying votes, but that certainly is made a lot easier if council members can speak up during the discussion phase on individual votes so that we can have a better understanding about where you might land rather than having to spend time and energy trying to count the hands that are raised as well.

We want to be mindful of the fact that Councilmember Herbold has introduced legislation, new legislation, that is not part of this committee's responsibility.

It is on today's agenda and has been referred to the Planning, Land Use, and Zoning Committee.

It is, I think, something that we will warrant larger discussion about within the framework of that committee, but I wonder, Councilmember Herbold, if there's anything you'd like to say about that now.

SPEAKER_16

That's sufficient.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_08

Okay.

Thank you.

So, without further ado, we'll now move into the public comment portion of today's agenda.

There are, like I said, about 20 people who've signed up to give public comment.

Each individual member of the public will have two minutes.

When I call your name, please come to the one of the two microphones at the front of the auditorium.

And it helps if we have folks line up so that we can move through the comment period quickly.

The first person is Debra Hanula, followed by Alice Lockhart, and then Michael Imagir.

SPEAKER_10

I'm not sure which microphone is this one fine.

Okay.

Thank you.

Good afternoon My name is Deborah Hanula and I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today I've heard now several times by at this meeting and last one about all the effort and years of work going into MHA But that's not the case for the amendments and I'm asking that you pull 418 councilmember Johnson staff informed me that 418 was added in mid-january of this year.

So I about a month ago.

418 was, according to them, not the preferred alternative or the Mayor's proposal and that the City Council did not have the opportunity to begin proposing amendments to the legislation until this year.

Capitol Hill residents only had notice of this when one person just happened to catch the City Council's website several weeks ago that mentioned 418. That's not notice.

And I appreciate we may not have a legal argument, but as citizens of the city, we should be treated with decency and respect.

Notice is giving people that will be impacted by changes to the zoning law actual notice.

For example, I received from the city a complaint about foliage on a sidewalk.

I received notice, a phone number to call, how to participate in that process.

Same with jury duty, same with I'm summoned to court.

Announcing this in the few weeks isn't enough.

And I was also told by Mr. Ahn that the final EIS was published on November 2017, but that's not notice.

I think it's disingenuous to think that we're going to go through 1,052 pages of the EIS study and assume that all the Seattleites who are working, raising children, taking care of elderly parents, retirees without computer skills, Citizens battling cancer, other life-threatening diseases are also diligently checking your website to see if the City Council has rejected, quote, the preferred alternative or the Mayor's proposal.

I'm respectfully requesting that you take 418 and remove it from the consent package, vote no on it, and really listen to us about the noise because a block of wall on Boylston that's going to bounce that noise and pollution back to us has not been looked at and your ordinance requires a noise ordinance administrator to look at things.

Thank you so much.

SPEAKER_08

Ms. Lockhart, you're going to be followed by Michael Imagir and then Randy Riedel.

SPEAKER_17

Good afternoon, Council.

I'm, as usual, here speaking for 350 Seattle's housing team.

This time, it's to sort of narrow our focus.

We absolutely support MHA.

We support the consent package with the exception of Amendment B6, which we hope will be pulled.

But I'm here to speak about the Crown Heel package.

Taken as a package, Actually, the Crown Hill package and the criteria for it, which we're hoping the council will apply to all of the neighborhood sets of map amendments.

I'm really sorry.

Given our housing and climate emergencies, each neighborhood package should, considered as a whole, reduce neither market rate nor affordable housing capacity provided by the MHA.

Crown Hill does that.

It should not reduce housing capacity planned for the vicinity of light rail.

Crown Hill isn't slated for light rail.

And each should have been arrived at by an equitable and inclusive neighborhood process, which in the case of Crown Hill meant that neighbors, not only homeowners, but renters were consulted as well, which I thought was pretty awesome.

and that the down zoning part of the balanced, some down zone, some up zone, was done with a motive of reducing displacement risk in particular parts of the neighborhood.

So it felt like an exemplary process.

It felt like there were criteria that could be used for such processes in the future.

And moreover, criteria that the council could use in discussing the D1 and D4 neighborhood amendment packages, which I believe sort of do the opposite with respect to housing near TDD and to balancing up and down and coming out with still a strong MHA.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_08

Thank you, Alice.

Michael, you're going to be followed by Randy Riedel, and then Esther Patrick, I believe.

SPEAKER_26

Good afternoon, Council.

My name's Mike Longyear, L-O-N-G-Y-E-A-R.

Sorry for the poor handwriting.

And I live in the Fisher Studio building, a historic building on 3rd Avenue.

I've been a downtown resident for over 30 years and in the Fisher Studio building on 3rd Avenue.

Enjoyed the adventure of living on third Avenue with the challenges of street crime and drugs and and familiar with downtown living my Purpose here today is to ask City Council to take it back a few steps on further development of downtown high-rise buildings that are throwing shadows and pending and impacting the quality of life for the downtown neighborhoods and look more at the market model of integrated housing with mixed incomes.

The Fisher Studio building is a mixed income building.

What we're seeing now are high rise buildings that the average person can't possibly afford.

We know that they're being marketed internationally, which is great.

Seattle is a cosmopolitan international city, but the result is it's not being built for the neighborhood, it's not building built for the sustainability of our community, and that these issues need to be addressed.

In particular, one of my neighbors and colleagues, Newt Ringen, will be talking more about a downtown density bill of rights, and we're asking city council to step back, realize that our infrastructure downtown was not built for a series of 48-story buildings with the thousands of peoples, thousands of auto trips, thousands of deliveries that are happening, and that the traffic, Snarl that we experience on a daily basis downtown Reflects in part because we don't have that infrastructure and we're over building what the current infrastructure can support.

So thank you for the time Thank you.

SPEAKER_08

Mr. Longyear apologies for the mispronunciation Randy Riedel Randy, you're going to be followed by Esther Patrick and then Alex Zimmerman Hi

SPEAKER_29

I'm Randy Riedel, and I have a home in the Morgan Junction area, and I'd like to speak in favor of MHA.

Just in general, I've got a picture at home.

It's the first depiction of the city of Seattle, and it was hand-drawn by an officer aboard a naval vessel sitting down the hill and just offshore at anchor.

And the reason they were there, they were trying to kill the city council at the time.

And well, I assume that's what they were doing because they were firing naval artillery at them.

So I don't think they were just trying to scare them.

The reason they were doing that was the city council at the time objected to the land use practices and the housing needs of the newcomers.

And so they had to get rid of the council, of course.

Here we are 163 years, 30 days later, and we're kind of arguing about the same things.

I heard in the last meeting a lot of people complaining about newcomers and everything, but the fact is they're coming.

and in droves, and I sort of like most of them.

And so we got to plan for them for the first time.

You know, in the past, we've been good at rejecting people that come in, you know, newcomers.

Think of the Chinese that built the railroads and so forth.

These people are mostly well-educated.

You know, you have to be to get the jobs we're getting.

and we need the housing.

So anything you do to downgrade the up zones is kind of hostile to the idea of MHA.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_08

Esther, you're going to be followed by Alex Zimmerman and then Sarah-Jane Siegfried.

SPEAKER_20

Hi, good afternoon.

Thank you.

I appreciate the opportunity to come here and to speak to you about the 418 and the luxury housing that is being built in the city.

And I want to talk about the lack of affordable housing that we have in this area.

I am a therapist, a social worker through Children's Administration through Washington State.

And I have clients that one of the big barriers to reunification of their children is affordable housing.

So when we're looking at the limited space that is in this area and you're taking and you're building luxury homes, that's taken away from actual affordable housing.

And it's very difficult.

And the person who spoke about the infrastructure and being able to navigate Seattle, I just want to echo that person.

It's very difficult to provide services for our families in this area because we can't get around.

You have buses, you have the bike system, but we need to drive cars in order to get to our families, in order to meet them and to provide the services that they need.

So I want to encourage a vote of no on 418. And I thank you for hearing what I have to say.

SPEAKER_08

Thank you, Ms. Patrick.

SPEAKER_34

Hi, my lovely consul.

My name is Alex Zimmerman.

I want to speak about what has happened today, happened for a long time, about zoning.

It's a BS, it's no question, but it's a dangerous BS because it's not a changed situation.

Without stopping Amazon, without stopping

SPEAKER_22

Empty apartment, nothing will be changed.

SPEAKER_34

It's exactly what is we need doing right now.

But it's much deeper problem what is we have right now.

This zoning rules what is you establish right now.

Established by council who for out in three go for re-election.

So situation what is we have right now, you approve something what is you never will be responsible.

So by definition, Number one, I want you to stop doing this now and wait for new people to come.

It's very important because a new brain will come with a guarantee right now.

It has changed the situation totally.

Number two, what is absolutely critical in what is I see for many years, for last four years, absolutely.

For example, Consul Johnson, you know what it means, possibly go out, only for one particular reason, because last week he make four hours.

We sit, a few dozen people sit in this chamber for four hours before we can speak.

Only for one particular reason, he possibly out from this from this committee is absolutely idiotic.

It's a pure fascism and cretinism.

It's number two.

And number three, we have experience with Mayor Murray.

We take him out.

You know what this mean?

Why we cannot take out Johnson right now?

Because by definition, he's absolutely egotistic and stupid council.

So right now, I speak to everybody who listen to me.

Stand up, America.

This zoning rules supposed to be wait for one year.

SPEAKER_08

Thank you, Mr. Zimmerman.

Ms. Siegfried, I apologize for the earlier speaker, and I'm sorry that you have to follow him.

You're going to be followed by Brittany Bollet and then Frank Fay.

SPEAKER_01

Thank you.

Sarah Jane Siegfried.

Thank you so much, council members, for this opportunity.

I want to read from the SCC Insight column, sccinsight.com today.

Just correct the record.

We keep hearing about 6,000 units.

of affordable housing being in this bill, but it's 3,000.

And as you know, the council asked for a reconsideration, rerunning of the model to see what would happen when the changes were made in those neighborhoods.

The council staff plugged in all the amendments under consideration and then reran the model.

It came up with a net decrease in MHA units of 56 out of the 3,000 originally expected to be produced.

about a 2% decrease for citywide MHA and 1% for the entire program, which includes downtown.

So I think that we're exaggerating the potential loss for not taking into consideration what the neighborhoods have requested.

Today you received a letter from Historic Seattle.

And as you know, SCALE presented about 40 different issues to the hearing examiner, and where the EIS clearly fell short was in consideration of historic resources.

The potential loss just hadn't been considered at all.

And this can only be done, we would say, by a parcel-by-parcel examination, in other words, by neighborhood planning.

The letter says, older buildings provide naturally occurring affordable housing.

Replacing them with new construction that does not offer affordable housing is displacement.

The council has an odd view of displacement.

It's a top-down thing that what the mayor has proposed is a Band-Aid.

You get displaced and you get on a list.

That's really not it.

And we're not talking about communities being displaced.

We're talking about individuals all over the city in every neighborhood.

We all have friends and relatives who have been displaced and are being displaced from the city.

So I ask you to take a step back and rethink displacement.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

SPEAKER_08

Siegfried.

Brittany, you're going to be followed by Frank Fay and then Judy Gibbs.

SPEAKER_13

Good afternoon, Council.

My name is Brittany Bollet.

I'm here on behalf of the Sierra Club Seattle Group.

The Sierra Club has long been supportive of MHA and continues to stand in support as the legislation enters the homestretch.

Being pro-environment means being pro-density.

Dense, affordable urban housing is good for the environment in a number of ways.

The more people that can live in a city, the fewer people have to drive in from outside the city.

MHA will decrease driving and increase transit biking and walking, helping the environment as well as increasing people's quality of life.

Multifamily and other small housing is energy efficient, requiring less energy to construct, heat, and cool than larger single family homes.

In a city where buildings are responsible for over 30% of our emissions, this matters.

Third, building in the city protects fragile wild areas outside the city.

Preventing sprawl protects our mountains, forests, wetlands, and other natural areas that we cherish and count as part of our regional identity.

This legislation has been studied, heard, examined, and discussed thoroughly, and it is time to pass it with the maximum number of upzones.

Let us use Seattle's remarkable growth as an opportunity to prove our place as a leader on climate and to welcome more friends and new neighbors into the parts of the city that we love the most.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_08

Thank you.

SPEAKER_27

Frank?

Good afternoon.

I'm Frank Fay.

an authentic neighborhood voice from Wallingford.

The following amendments are needed to improve the MHA legislation.

First, I'd like to cover the ones that cover my neighborhood.

I'd like to, excuse me, advocate for a yes vote for 414, for 415, for 416B, and for 417. I would like to definitely advocate a no vote for 416A, which has not been consulted with the neighborhood or the neighbors that would be affected there.

But more importantly, I'd also like to address the fundamentals of the legislation.

There needs to be one-for-one replacement of displaced affordable housing units.

There must be frequent reporting requirements and substantial corrections required if the replaced goals are not met.

This needs to be added to the legislation.

There needs to be a requirement that MHA units are built in the neighborhood of the contributing developments.

We want inclusive neighborhoods.

That's the promise of MHA.

Failure to include such a provision will result in gentrified and segregated neighborhoods.

And finally, well-constructed legislation includes provisions that should cover what would happen if part or all of the legislation is found to be unlawful.

This should be the case for MHA legislation.

A provision needs to be added to deal with this likely circumstance, and it needs to be a provision, not a resolution.

It needs to specify exactly what will happen should this legislation be found unlawful.

The MHA legislation is complex, based on novel legal theories, and likely subject to lawsuits by at least three parties.

It is vital that this city is not left with nothing if the lawsuit succeeds.

This is the responsibility of the Council.

Thank you.

Judy Gibbs.

SPEAKER_08

Judy Gibbs, you're going to be followed by Matt Hutchins and then Leo Brennan.

SPEAKER_24

Hi, I'm Judy Gibbs, and I'm concerned about the Heron Habitat yet again, which is a designated wildlife refuge.

Mike Marsh and David Moring spoke last week at MDC when Rob Johnson came to speak to us.

He said he would meet with us about the Heron Habitat.

We're still interested in waiting to hear from Rob about the Heron Habitat.

We do not want upzoning in the buffer zone around the heron habitat.

There's supposed to be a certain amount, there's supposed to be a buffer zone, a certain amount of space around the heron habitat to protect the birds.

And we think the proposed upzoning would impact that And we do not want that upzoning around the designated wildlife refuge.

So, Rob, we'd like to hear from you.

Sally, Council Member Bagshaw is our council member.

We would welcome your involvement in this.

But we've heard here from groups like the Sierra Club.

I would hope that the Sierra Club, which I have belonged to for many years, not now, but have in the past, I would hope that the environmental groups would support protection of a wildlife refuge.

SPEAKER_08

Thank you, Jeanne.

Matt, followed by Leo Brennan, and then Knut Ringen.

Hi.

SPEAKER_23

Seattle's facing a housing crisis, a climate crisis, and is an increasingly inequitable city to live in.

I want this to be a place where my daughter can, in 20 years, find a place to live in her neighborhood that she lives in now.

be able to raise a family, be able to afford housing, close to jobs, parks, schools, all the great things that we think about when we think about Seattle today.

Creating close-in housing options equitably across our city addresses kind of all three.

So I'd like you to support all the residential small lot amendments, those things that help homeowners modify their houses, or take apartment bans off the table, do common sense flexibility for ADUs and DADUs, and keep those 900 properties from being effective down zones, the ones that are under 3,700 square feet.

Now as much as I'm an advocate for residential small lot zoning, it's not a substitute for more appropriate uses like low rise around light rail and throughout other parts of the neighborhood.

So I'd also like you to oppose map amendments that decrease the zoning capacity, They are first of all hit on potential new affordable housing.

They are inequitably distributed.

They really are only happening in two urban villages and they'll lead to less new housing and market rates, something I don't know that that staff has portrayed in the recent study, and at least in my neighborhood, I think it's a false promise to support higher density as part of neighborhood planning once ST3 comes around.

So I would say please vote for the maximum MHA for the maximum benefit.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_08

Thank you, Matt.

Leo?

Leo, you're going to be followed by Knut Ringen and then Corey Crocker.

SPEAKER_05

Hello, yes, my name is Leo Brown.

My family and I have a property in the Roosevelt area, and while we very much support the MHA up zone, our house is presently single family, and it's going to, I believe, LR1 or LR2, which we would support very much.

We love the neighbourhood, it's a great neighbourhood.

It could be a fantastic neighbourhood done right and I think the way it's been right now, it's going to be one of the hot neighbourhoods on the north side.

The block that our house is in, there are I think seven single properties there and While I think most properties are going to get an up zone, we're right next to the bank, commercial bank, and the rest of the block is actually going to get up to zone, I believe NC75, which would leave a huge step down for our property.

So we would hope and ask the City Council that, not during this legislation, that they would consider maybe upzoning the whole block to the same zoning so to be all even and not have this huge step down from NC75 down to LR2.

And thank you for your work.

Thank you, Leo.

SPEAKER_08

Can you, followed by Corey Crocker and then Mark Sherberg.

SPEAKER_12

Good afternoon, my name is Knut Ringen with the Fisher Studio Building.

We have been working with Councilmember Bagshaw's staff to develop some amendments to deal with some of the unanticipated issues of administering upzoning downtown, and those were considered not to be germane to this legislation because it doesn't deal specifically with downtown.

So we have developed the outline for what we would like to call a downtown density bill of rights that I've submitted for the record to deal with making sure that we protect existing neighbors, existing residences, that we get a more rational review process that the public can participate in better, and a couple of other objectives.

We've studied now the history of the downtown upzoning legislation and the administration going around that over the last decade or so.

The objective of that legislation was to create more affordable housing downtown.

This hasn't happened.

Of the 6,000 or so apartments that are being built or proposed downtown right now, not one of them is affordable by a long shot.

And I would like to echo what Mike Longyear said, that we're risking creating here a segregated city based on economics.

and that we're going to have this really rich downtown ghetto, more or less, without the diversity that we need to be a vibrant city.

And that's probably going to happen in other areas also that you upzone in the urban villages, because as those centers become more valuable to developers, they will try to do the same thing.

So I urge you to make sure that, not just that people can buy themselves out of having to provide affordable housing, but that they actually have to provide affordable housing as part of their legislation.

And finally, the District of Columbia, not an example of municipal government, just recently enacted legislation saying that no new up-zoned properties could pass the shade onto their neighbors.

SPEAKER_08

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Reagan.

SPEAKER_06

Good afternoon, Councilmembers.

I am Cory Crocker, a small business owner and 30-year resident of the U District.

Many of us in the U District welcomed increased density, and we were the first neighborhood to require affordable housing through the MHA program two years ago with the adoption of our ReZone.

At that time, you listened to our existential concerns of our small business owners.

You offered a delay of the ReZone along the ave to study the impacts and promised seven companion resolutions to help mitigate our concerns.

In the two years since, we organized, raised our own funds, and conducted a survey of 123 small businesses along the Ave, when we discovered how very vulnerable they are.

However, we have not seen noticeable progress on those companion resolutions from the city, and our predicament continues to worsen.

We need your help.

So that the benefits of the density that may be enjoyed by more of our endangered small businesses.

We are disappointed that our proposed amendment was not sponsored by our council member so that the other council members can consider it and maybe support our modest request.

We welcome the opportunity to work with you to continue that work on a solution that would be good for our neighborhood.

And we invite you and everyone here to join us tonight from 5 to 9 p.m.

at Big Time Brewery in the U District for the Rally to Save the Ave.

Please join us.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_08

Mark Sherbrooke, you're going to be followed by Patience Malaba, and then Chris Lehman.

SPEAKER_07

Okay.

Regarding A2 development standards, in order to clarify legislative intent, I request council to specify the maximum number of apartment units that a 4,000 square foot RSL parent lot would be allowed to support.

I also find it interesting that amendments three and four use maintaining compatibility with single family zones in support of passing those amendments.

Is this an indication that the city wants to put apartments next in single family zones, that is, after passing HALA, to make things compatible between single family and RSL?

SPEAKER_08

Thank you, Mark.

I believe our technical presentation may cover some of the issues that you asked questions about.

Patience, you're going to be followed by Chris Lehman and Cindy Barker.

SPEAKER_04

Thank you.

Good afternoon, council members.

For the record, my name is Patience Malaba with the Housing Development Consortium of Seattle King County.

I am also here representing Seattle for Everyone, a coalition united on supporting this legislation.

And I just want to say as today you work towards voting on this legislation and taking it out of committee, We thank you for your leadership and we look forward to you actually passing it out of committee.

And as you discuss the issue of amendments, we really encourage you to ensure that you're maximizing the affordable home goals that this legislation can get.

Ensure that all districts can equally contribute to ensuring that we have more housing.

There are various reductions in district one, in district two in District 4 and in District 6, and we would like to call on you to ensure that we're getting maximum housing in those specific areas, especially in areas that are near transit, in areas that are near open spaces, in areas that are near jobs, and in areas that are also set for future station area planning.

We want to ensure that people have the option to live near those amenities, which are essentially public investments.

We're also looking at the issue of the historic district carve-outs that we see in the amendments.

While we recognize that there is a legal step that needs to be taken and that needs to be harked very carefully, we do see that as holding most of the city as off limits for multifamily housing.

So we're calling on you to carefully consider ensuring that there are absence in some of those specific areas because emphasizing on exclusionary zoning and the need to face it head on, and yet we are having these amendments that are not doing that, is not a path that we should be charting.

So we're calling on you to build an inclusive city, and this is the opportunity that we have as a city.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_08

Thank you, Patience.

Chris?

Chris, you're going to be followed by Cindy Barker.

SPEAKER_02

Yeah, the letters that I just provided, we just finished on Saturday, and I was, we were researching them on Thursday, weren't able to get down, did come to the hearing, but since you concluded it early, I missed the hearing.

Just a joke.

Thank you for staying as long as you did.

But the letter in particular that we want you to look at is this amendment 418 that is a terrible surprise to you know pose on a neighborhood that has a lot of development damage that we've already experienced and will experience under MHA.

It would bring mid-rise zoning to our neighborhood for the first time ever and you mustn't do this without engaging the neighborhood and really you know, fully examining the impacts, which do include the noise reflection, which was not adequately discovered, looked at, and not looked at at all in the environmental impact statement.

And there's a number of things, in particular, Councilmember Johnson, you told the Council that this was based on a on the idea of trying to step down the heights from higher on the top of the hillside of East Lake and down to the shoreline.

Well, that in theory was one approach that was controversial but was discussed at the 2017 workshop in our neighborhood.

But that's not what you're proposing.

Unfortunately, You are not providing step down, and you are just cherry picking.

The worst thing about that is just what you're doing in Crown Hill.

It's totally unfair, wrong, and underhanded, and you mustn't do it.

Please remove this.

If you want to add it later, in a couple of years after some process do so.

Now finally about clawback, you know, it doesn't make sense for you to pass legislation where you can't correct things if somebody's successful.

SPEAKER_08

Your time is up, Mr. Lehman.

Ms. Barker?

Ms. Barker, you're going to be followed by Richard Ellison, and Richard, you're our last speaker today.

SPEAKER_33

Cindy Barker from Morgan Junction.

I want to speak to D2, even though it's in the consent package, I want to make sure it's very clear.

The Planning Commission came up last time and said, if you put this in, it commits OPCD to do neighborhood planning in our neighborhood.

It does not.

I want to make sure you understand that.

It is supposed to be a signal because each neighborhood plan is reflective of the unique concerns of the neighborhoods.

We have always used that in Morgan as a companion to what we are doing with the city for incorporation of our neighborhood plan.

We're one of the few neighborhoods that actually has tracked many of our projects as we go through.

So it's our signal for those of us who are looking to get away from land use that the future stakeholder group look at our neighborhood plan, and when 25% of our urban village comes up under a proposed land use change or zoning change, our stewardship group is signaled to say, maybe you ought to go consider using neighborhood planning.

So that's a critical distinction I need to make sure you understand.

It does not commit OPCD to go spend money on just Morgan Junction.

That is not our intent.

So, on to citywide things.

Thank you to central staff.

I've talked here twice about being concerned about the visualization of RSL.

I'm now relaxed on that, recognizing what lot sizes they were talking about.

I do want to say, B6, please do pass that claw back.

I think that is due diligence on your part.

Another thing is Historic Seattle sent you a letter today, and that got covered in an earlier comment, so I'm just going to say I'm supportive of the points that they made in that.

Please pass amendment B7, which is 5% for home ownership.

That's an important one for Morgan Junction.

We are really looking to make sure that we continue to attract young starter families, people whose economic circumstances won't let them buy some of the new housing stock that's being built.

So 5% for home ownership in entities such as community land trust is important to us.

Thank you.

Mr. Ellison.

SPEAKER_30

Hello, my name is Richard Ellison, and I'd like to speak about tree protection in MHA.

Currently, the proposal is only for fees in lieu of mitigation, meaning that no matter how big that tree is, they can cut it down.

So what that means is that both heritage trees and exceptional trees are not protected at all by this ordinance.

They can go ahead and cut down three exceptional trees per year on a property.

In speaking to Nolan Rehnquist today, the Seattle City Arborist, he said that there's only 238 active heritage trees in the City of Seattle.

So a developer can come and cut any of these trees down just by paying a fee.

There should be a standard that says no.

For example, the Seattle Comprehensive Plan says that one of the four core values is environmental stewardship.

So as we thrust forward in building more housing, we have to have environmental stewardship also.

Can we not save 238, try to protect these trees?

Of these 238 trees, 160 are believed to be on private property.

Of the 1,449,000 Street trees, only 2,882 of them are exceptional.

What that means is less than 2% of the city's street trees are exceptional trees.

Can't we follow?

the core principles of environmental stewardship and say, let's save the best 2% of Seattle.

And if we can't do that, can we even say, let's guarantee saving all the heritage trees?

Developers can't cut them down.

Why is that so hard to do?

Apparently, we've been kicking the can down the street for decades now.

on tree protection.

And we say, oh, we're going to have a great tree protection ordinance coming soon, but it just never quite comes to happening because all kinds of issues come up.

So here it is.

Put your foot down right now on MHA.

Set the standard.

Make this a template for part of the future.

Protect heritage trees.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_08

That concludes public comment for this afternoon.

We have three bills in front of us, but we're going to start with them one at a time.

So I believe, Madam Clerk, we're going to.

Miss Williams, I will allow it.

Hold on for just one second so we can restart.

Go ahead.

SPEAKER_11

Okay, I'm a Longford resident and many of the neighbors, my neighbors have participated in numerous open houses the last few years.

MHA legislation has offered little flexibility on important details such as the unchanged five to seven percent locked in low fees due to the grand bargain and So zoning has not been the zoning has not been flexible as far as within the neighborhood so some of the map changes that have been offered and are named as map amendments.

Low-rise, one going to RSL.

I support 414, 415, 416, no, because it wasn't on the agenda.

The neighbors don't know about it.

416B, a yes.

417A, a yes.

And I support the clawback, B6 amendment, because the city needs protection from the lawsuits.

And that's it.

Thank you very much.

SPEAKER_27

Thank you, Ms. Williams.

SPEAKER_08

So now we will conclude the public comments and I'll ask the clerk to read in the abbreviated title of our first agenda item which is the Seattle Municipal Code bill to implement citywide MHA.

Madam Clerk.

SPEAKER_18

Agenda item one, Council Bill 119444, relating to mandatory housing affordability, rezoning certain land and modifying development standards throughout the city, implementing MHA requirements, modifying existing development standards to improve livability, amending chapter 23.32 of Seattle Municipal Code for discussion and possible vote.

SPEAKER_08

Thank you.

Ms. Panuccio, will you start us with some introductions, and then I believe you've got a brief presentation.

SPEAKER_19

Allie Panucci, Council Central staff.

As we get started today, as a refresher, prior to diving into the discussion of the amendments, Yolanda will briefly walk through some examples of the types of development we expect to see in certain zones.

I will then briefly discuss how the proposed amendments would impact the estimated number of rent and income restricted units that would be produced in a 10-year period from the MHA program, and then we will move into a discussion of the amendments.

SPEAKER_08

And before we move to you, Ms. Ho, why don't we do introductions for the benefit of the rest of the public?

Mr. McConaghy.

SPEAKER_09

Eric McConaghy, Council Central Staff.

Ketel Freeman, Council Central Staff.

SPEAKER_14

Yolanda Ho, Council Central Staff.

SPEAKER_09

Liz Schwitz and Council Central staff.

SPEAKER_08

And I've asked Yolanda and Ali to give us a walkthrough of these so that as a member of the public earlier commented, I believe it was Cindy Barker, we could get a better sense of the visualizations of the implementation of MHA in individual zones.

So, colleagues, there's an opportunity for you to follow along, but there's also the projection of the presentation here.

And I'll keep you in my head on a swivel in case you have questions.

Please, Ms. Ho.

SPEAKER_14

All right, so we will just be moving through a certain zone, not all of the zones that will be affected by MHA.

So if we can move to the next.

Yeah, so we'll start with RSL, which has been the topic of much discussion because currently it has only been limited to the Madison Miller Urban Village.

So all areas that are converted to RSL are currently zoned single family.

And the idea of the RSL zone is to encourage more of that missing middle housing.

So the top left image is a cottage style housing, top right is two stacked housing units.

And in the illustrations below, the orange house is an existing house and the white house behind is because in the code there is a 50% existing floor area exemption from the FAR limit.

So that may encourage some preservation of existing structures.

And the bottom right shows a single structure with three homes, one on each floor.

And in regards to the public comment or question, a building with two apartments would be allowed on a 4,000 square foot lot.

SPEAKER_08

Questions about this, colleagues?

Okay, continue, Ms. Hu.

SPEAKER_14

So we'll kind of run through the next few.

I think RSL has kind of been the main focus of interest.

And if there are any questions, please feel free to stop me.

But, you know, interest of time, we'll kind of get through these.

So low-rise, low-rise one would be primarily row houses, townhouses, and small apartment buildings.

making a note that Amendment 8-6 would change the density limit from one unit per 1,350 square feet to 1,300 square feet.

SPEAKER_08

And no changes to the height there, just slight changes to the floor area ratio associated with it?

SPEAKER_14

Low rise two is just kind of higher density.

Again, mix of townhouses, row houses, three and four story apartment buildings.

This does get the height, the 10 foot height increase, a slight increase in the FAR limit.

And so top left, it shows live work units.

Top right is some, just an example of apartment and building.

And let's see, yeah.

So bottom left is kind of a smaller lot.

What could happen there?

Townhouses.

Bottom right is a larger lot.

And apartment building.

Low rise three.

So this one would be just kind of, again, a slightly higher increase.

The range is due to whether located in an urban village or within an urban village or outside of an urban village.

So this just kind of shows five, four to five story apartment buildings or condos.

SPEAKER_08

And so in some parts of our land use code, we have neighborhood commercial zones that are going to be about the same height limit as the proposed low rise three zones.

But the major difference there is what is allowed on the ground floor of the building.

Is that correct?

SPEAKER_14

Correct.

Yeah.

So neighborhood commercials tends to be more of the mixed use with the commercial on the ground floor versus low rise, which could be fully residential.

Great.

That's great.

And so moving into the neighborhood commercial that we were speaking of.

So again, we're going to be kind of walking through the progression of increased building height.

So NC40 will get the 10-foot bump, slight increase in the FAR limit.

And just shows a couple, just an example of that type of building.

So ground floor commercial, again, is the intent here.

NC55, so this will actually comprise the largest portion of the commercial zoning in the project area.

So the bottom illustration shows NC55 on the right and LR1 on the left just for comparison and the infills indicated in yellow.

I think that's good, yeah.

And NC75 is, again, just kind of, we're looking at seven story buildings, ground floor commercial, increase in FAR limit.

Also pertinent to this zone, co-changes we made that were worked on last year, allowing six floors of wood frame construction on top of two stories of concrete base.

make it more likely that developers can take full advantage of this height limit increase.

And the bottom illustration shows NC75 on the left and NC55 on the right.

Again, infill indicated in yellow.

And we move on to mid-rise.

So mid-rise is residential again.

So this is showing this height increase and FAR increase.

Again, similar to the NC 75 zone, developers will be able to take advantage of this height limit increase with the code change, the building code changes.

And I will just highlight the top right is a image is the mid-rise zoning development standards include standards that encourage courtyards and other open spaces.

So that's an illustration of a courtyard.

And finally, for high rise, oops, sorry, there's a typo in here.

So there's a height increase and where the FAR increases relatively modest to encourage a taller, more slender tower and limit the number of towers that are built on a single lot.

And the bottom right shows a tower with a height of 440 feet on a 28,000 square foot lot.

So, any questions?

That was a quick one, too, but just want to give some pictures to the zones.

SPEAKER_08

Yeah, I believe that concludes Ms. Ho's presentation, but I thought it would be helpful for our colleagues and members of the public to have a better sense about particularly the visualizations in those smaller residential small lot and low rise zones.

And I'm not seeing any questions, which means I think we should proceed, Ms. Panici.

SPEAKER_19

I'll move on to a brief discussion about the MHA production estimates.

Attachment seven to the central staff memo posted to the agenda for today provides a brief summary of the methodology used to estimate growth and the projected production of rent and income-restricted units that would be produced through implementation of the MHA citywide legislation, compares the results of the model to the estimates of new housing and MHA units, and offers some policy discussion related to those amendments.

As described in more detail in the memo, the suite of amendments that were discussed at the February 8th committee meeting will result in reducing the estimated number of MHA units citywide by 56 units.

This is a number based on a model run.

So I'll just reiterate what I said in the memo, that the amount of new housing and the number of rent and income restricted units produced through implementation of the citywide MHA legislation ultimately depends on the amount of future development.

The model estimates future conditions using the best available data, but because of the many unknown factors influencing the production of housing and commercial development, the model must make a series of assumptions about the city's growth.

After full implementation, the city will monitor and report on the actual production of affordable housing and may propose adjustments for the council's consideration if we are not achieving those goals.

SPEAKER_08

Questions about the model run, colleagues?

Please, Council Member Mosqueda.

SPEAKER_32

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you so much, Ms. Panucci, for developing this analysis.

Can I ask just a few quick clarifying questions?

So we did see and we heard in testimony that this analysis shows a reduction of 56 affordable units over the next 10 years with these amendments, correct?

Correct.

Okay.

And I think what's important to note there is we're really talking about the 56 units are just those that would be sort of triggered by MHA.

That doesn't include the full analysis of the potential overall market rate housing options that could be lost if potential amendments went through.

Is that accurate?

It does not.

I don't have those numbers off the top of my head, but I can provide them.

Yeah, okay, thank you very much.

And again, 56 is the number of units, not necessarily the number of individuals.

So depending on how many individuals live together in a family unit, the number is multiplied.

If we assume 2.5 individuals per family, you know, it's up over 100.

SPEAKER_19

Correct.

It is based on the number of affordable units that would produce, not the size of the household or the number of individuals.

Thank you so much.

SPEAKER_32

Just want to clarify that.

SPEAKER_08

Please.

Yes, Councilor Gonzales.

SPEAKER_15

Ms. Panucci, in terms of the estimate of household size, does the model account for the number of people who would be living in these 56 units?

SPEAKER_19

The model is based on a number of assumptions that estimates, that is based on sort of the city's investment in affordable units.

I'm not certain that it actually breaks it down into, you know, what exact size units we expect and the size of the household we expect in each of those units, but I would have to dig in a little bit more to answer that question, but it is really focused on number of units produced and not number of individuals impacted.

SPEAKER_15

And that's sort of been my constant frustration with how we model these numbers is it's a very widget kind of approach as opposed to really evaluating the number of people that we would create access to additional affordable housing for so I would really appreciate getting a better sense of the what the model is taking into account in terms of household size as it relates to each unit.

I think that gives us a more accurate picture of the impact of the suite of amendments that are before us.

SPEAKER_08

Further questions or thoughts?

Ms. Panucci, please continue.

SPEAKER_19

Okay, so I think now we are ready to start the discussion of the amendments.

We will be, before I turn it back to Chair Johnson, I just want to note that we will be using attachments 2, 3, 4, and 5 to walk through the amendments.

There are summary tables at the beginning of each of those.

Each of those attachments, excuse me, attachments two, three, four, and five, there are summary tables at the beginning of each of those attachments.

I have hard copies available if any council member needs a copy of that table all combined or if members of the public in the audience need a copy, we have those available.

SPEAKER_08

Okay, so as a reminder, folks, kind of the run of show from here on out.

At the clerk's request, I'm going to put the bill in front of us and ask for a second.

Then we'll walk through what we're calling the group one amendments.

That's the consent agenda.

The central staffers will walk through individual items briefly that we discussed at our last full committee meeting.

There was consensus that those should be part of a consent package.

I'll look to my left and to my right to see if any member would like to pull any item from the consent package.

If an item is pulled, we'll discuss it for an individual vote.

If no items are pulled, then we'll take action on that entire consent package and move to group two amendments afterwards, which were all issues that were discussed and an individual council member asked for us to do an individual vote on those.

Please, Council Member Herbold.

SPEAKER_16

Thank you.

A process question.

If items in the consent package are pulled out for individual votes, will they be voted on at that time or will they be voted on later when we get to the non-consent package votes?

SPEAKER_08

We'll put them in the queue and we'll vote on them later when we get to those non-consent agenda votes.

But you bring up a second important point that I was getting to which is for some of the geographically specific votes that we may take that are not part of the consent agenda.

It is my intention that we'll vote on those as a suite as it relates to one particular neighborhood.

So for example, Councilman O'Brien, in his absence, has asked us to take a singular vote on the Crown Hill amendments.

Council central staff will walk us through those individual amendments, but when we get to that point, I will ask for a vote on the suite of those amendments as opposed to individual votes on all, I believe it is, eight or so amendments in that neighborhood.

Similar process in West Seattle, I believe, and we'll take a slightly different approach in District 4. Other process-related questions, colleagues?

Okay, so without further ado, I will just put the bill in front of us and move to pass Council Bill 119444. Okay, it's been moved and seconded.

Ms. Panucci, why don't you walk us through the consent package?

SPEAKER_19

Thank you.

So for the consent package, I'm going to start with the text amendment.

So that's starting with amendment A1, which can be found in attachment two to the memo on the page numbered 14. So amendment A1 would allow additions to existing buildings and residential small lot zones that exceed the 2200 square foot limit based on a percentage increase of existing floor area or allowing a second story does not increase the footprint of existing structures.

Seeing no objection, we'll move on.

Amendment A2 would remove the absolute limit on the number of units in an apartment development.

Density limits along with regulations on your height, yard requirements and floor area would still apply.

This relates to RSL zones.

I'll note that at the last committee meeting, there were two options on the table and the sponsors of those two options agreed to move forward the option as proposed by Council Member Johnson that removes the absolute limit.

Seeing no objection, we'll move on.

Amendment A3 would make accessory dwelling unit requirements in RSL zones more consistent with what already applies in single-family zones.

SPEAKER_08

Yes, please.

Councilwoman Gonzalez.

SPEAKER_15

Thank you.

I just want to make sure that in this reporting requirement that the Department, SDCI and Housing, our Office of Housing have existing resources to comply with the reporting requirement components of this bill, and perhaps that's not a question that we know the answer to right now, but I just want to flag that I want to make sure that there's existing resources available for that, and if not, if there's a plan to address those resource issues in our upcoming budget process.

SPEAKER_19

We can flag that to confirm during budget, but this is an ongoing reporting requirement.

Amendment B4 would allow offsite performance in the MHA residential program.

SPEAKER_08

Seeing no objection, we'll move on.

SPEAKER_19

Amendment B6 adds a new section to the council bill expressing council's intent to take steps if the imposition of requirements under MHA are determined to be unlawful to prevent the continuance of the new zoning and increase development capacity in the absence of substantial affordable housing requirements.

SPEAKER_08

Council Member Muscat.

SPEAKER_32

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to suggest that we pull Amendment B6 from the consent package and I want to give a little bit of an explanation of why.

I'd like to push back on the general framework and the concept that zoning changes aren't a positive benefit for our community, in addition to the affordable housing generated through MHA.

I think we all know and we've talked about today that Seattle is facing a housing crisis, largely because we have not updated our zoning code to accommodate the massive growth that we've experienced in this city over the last decade and before that even.

One of the goals of the MHA program was to provide more affordable housing options across the city, zoning changes, and this is the tool to get us that way.

So as I read the amendment, it would set the intent to repeal MHA rezones, halt future zoning changes, and possibly institute a moratorium on development.

So the MHA zoning changes have taken years of engagement already.

You've talked about hundreds of meetings in terms of planning with community and advocacy and conversations with our community partners.

The last thing I would like us to do is set a precedent that says that this process has to start all over again and the progress would be reversed under any circumstances.

I think that's not the message we'd like to send.

I'd like a little bit more time to talk about this.

Amendment C1 is, I believe, our next discussion item.

SPEAKER_19

Amendment C1 would use the definition of frequent transit service in the residential, small lot, high-rise, residential, and neighborhood commercial three-zone, rezone criteria to identify areas where certain zones are appropriate.

Seeing no objection, we'll move on.

Amendment E1 makes technical or clarifying amendments to fix typos and other drafting errors identified by staff.

I will just note that it is likely that there will be another set of technical and clarifying amendments that we will be asking for the council's consideration of at the final council vote.

Just given the number of amendments, there's likely to be a few things we need to clean up at the final meeting.

SPEAKER_08

Seeing no objection, we'll move on.

I believe that concludes the text amendments, and we'll now be moving to the map amendments that are part of the consent agenda.

SPEAKER_19

Correct.

So that will start with map 1-8.

This amendment would reduce the proposed zone designation in the Morgan Junction urban village south of South Graham Street and northwest of Font Leroy Way Southwest to a less intense low-rise multifamily zone designation.

SPEAKER_08

Council Member Mosqueda.

SPEAKER_32

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I apologize if there was confusion last time.

As we were talking about the various amendments, it was my intent to pull this amendment in addition to the other ones that we discussed at the last committee meeting.

I think the rationale is very similar to what we discussed in terms of desiring more conversation around amendments that would reduce the number of housing units available to build by transit and amenities like grocery stores and would love to have the conversation as we pull out the other ones as well.

SPEAKER_08

We will then deal with Amendment 1-8 at the conclusion of the consent amendment discussion after we deal with Amendment B-6.

So those will come before we move to the Group 2 individual votes.

Amendment 311a would increase the proposed zone designation for the single-family portion of a parcel address is 953 23rd Avenue from RSL to low-rise one.

I'll note that this is a new amendment added after the February 8th committee meeting but was discussed at a previous committee meeting or a variation of it.

SPEAKER_08

Seeing no objection, we'll move on.

SPEAKER_19

Amendment 314 would increase the proposed zone designation in the areas east of Martin Luther King Jr.

Way and South Jackson Street from RSL to low-rise multifamily.

SPEAKER_08

Seeing no objection, we'll move on.

SPEAKER_19

Amendment 315 would increase the proposed zone designation for the parcel addressed as 1722 22nd Avenue South from low-rise to mid-rise.

Seeing no objection, we'll move on.

Amendment 316 would increase the proposed zone designation for a portion of the block at the northwest corner of 20th Avenue South and South Holgate Street from RSL to Low Rise.

Seeing no objection, we'll move on.

Amendment 317 would increase the proposed zone designation for the parcel addressed as 1419 22nd Avenue from RSL to Low Rise 2. Seeing no objection, we'll move on.

Amendment 318 would increase the proposed zone designation for the block bounded by South Charles Street, South Norman Street, 25th Avenue South, and 26th Avenue South from RSL to Low Rise 1. I'll also note that this is a new addition added after the last committee discussion.

SPEAKER_08

Seeing no objection, we'll move on.

SPEAKER_19

SPEAKER_19

I just have one comment that there are a couple of amendments in the map amendments that have companion amendments to the comprehensive plan that will be discussed when we get to the next bill.

And we will just note that when we're at that place.

But there are choices here making that require sort of partner amendments to the comprehensive plan bill.

SPEAKER_08

Well said, Ms. Panucci.

We'll look forward to your direction when we get to the second bill.

Please, Council Member Herbold.

SPEAKER_16

I'm not interested in going back and relitigating whether or not we're keeping certain amendments in the consent package.

I support the amendments that we are discussing moving forward in the consent package.

I do have a question, though, as it relates specifically to the North Rainier Mount Baker Historic District amendments.

In this example, we are, as I understand it, we are maintaining the recommended zoning designation, but we are not applying the MHA requirement.

SPEAKER_19

That is so that the area where the existing or proposed urban village boundary overlaps with the established historic district would not see any zoning changes and MHA would not be implemented.

So it would stay.

Okay, this is a committee meeting, so don't forget to raise your hand.

All those in favor, please signify by saying aye and raise your hand.

Aye.

None opposed?

So the consent package consisted of almost 50 amendments.

So congratulations, Ms. Panucci.

We're a little, I think, close to halfway there.

So now we'll go back before we move to group two and discuss first amendment B6.

In order to put that amendment before us, I will move adoption of B6 and ask for a second.

It has been properly moved and seconded.

I believe you would like to speak to this amendment in further detail.

SPEAKER_16

Does the proposer get to speak to it first?

SPEAKER_08

I'm acting a little on the fly here, Council Member Herbold.

If you would like the opportunity to speak to it first, I would love that.

SPEAKER_16

I would like to.

Thank you.

So the legislation itself is a unique piece of legislation.

I don't believe that it is in itself, any statements that we make about our intent is precedent setting.

It is by its very nature proposed to be a bargain.

In the central staff memo that we have before us, page two, the legislation is described as a rezone of the city's commercial and multifamily areas, urban villages, and areas on the edges of urban villages within a 10-minute walk of frequent transit.

In exchange for the ability to build additional floors, floor area, or units, areas rezoned under the proposal would be required to include affordable housing units on site or make a payment in lieu to build affordable off-site housing.

Now, you know, again, this has been characterized as a grand bargain.

And if we do not hold all parties accountable for the contents of the bargain, I really think that undercuts our ability to negotiate with parties in the future.

This legislation is, by its very intent for the last four years, been all about extracting commitments from developers wherever they're developing, both residential and commercial, extracting commitments for affordable housing.

If we show today that we're not serious about that, I don't know how we can really take ourselves seriously as a council for these kinds of negotiations when we are expecting something of value when we grant something of value.

talk.

SPEAKER_08

Please Councillor Mosquitto

SPEAKER_32

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the sponsor of the amendment for the explanation.

And I think here is the crux of my concern.

This amendment would add a new section to Council Bill 119444 expressing the Council's intent to take steps if the imposition of requirements under MHA are determined to be unlawful to prevent the continuance of the new zoning and increased development capacity in the absence of substantial affordable housing requirements.

So to me, I think that this entire summary of this amendment runs counter to what we are hoping to achieve out of this MHA program.

And again, let's reiterate that this is very minimal changes that we're making.

If for some reason we were to have to push pause, go on hold, and not move forward on the entire essence of what we're trying to accomplish here, halt future zoning, repeal MHA rezones, I think it would be counter to the goals that we've talked about over the last four years.

I also think that a moratorium on redevelopment runs counter to our affordability goals.

So it's not just the building, but it's creating the opportunity to get dollars in hand so that we can build more affordable housing.

And to me, I think it deserves scrutiny as to whether or not this council wants to move forward to include this type of language.

I am not interested in sending a message that we would have some sort of moratorium.

I think that could have adverse impacts on our ability to build the affordable housing and with the in lieu fees that could potentially be paid, restricting our ability to get those dollars in hand as well.

So I appreciate the good intent and for me this is something that I'm not comfortable with voting on because of the signal that it sends.

SPEAKER_08

Any other colleagues like to weigh in?

I will just offer Council Member Herbold that I think I will be voting in favor of this amendment and I philosophically agree with what you've offered Council Member Muscata.

I don't love the idea that folks who have held up this legislation for several months, if not years, have been fundraising off of this amendment.

However, I think that this amendment, as it's written, is purely intent language.

It is any future council's purview to act in whatever way that council chooses to.

And all of this amendment does is affirm that that future council has the right to take future actions.

And so I think it is partly incumbent upon us to recognize that it is not our job to tie the hands of future councils, but to recognize that future councils have future choices to make.

I don't see this as particularly harmful to the adoption of the legislation.

I don't love it, but I'm inclined to support it.

Council President Harrell.

SPEAKER_03

Just a thought or a comment.

I guess my concern is that Just language to suggest if we're doing something that is determined and lawful.

It just seems that that's just bad language to have in any ordinance.

It seems we have to recognize anything we do is subject to a legal challenge.

But it would seem to me that it'd be kind of thing we sort of cross that bridge when we'd come to it, or at least that council would, because it's not like a court will just say, it's unlawful, start over.

Often there's opinions and directives that the council would use moving forward.

So I'm not sure what it does.

It seems to me that if we didn't have it, It still applies.

The council's free to take whatever action they want.

So I'm not sure really what you get by adding it, but it seems to me that an opponent of MHA would suggest, well, look, they already think that there's some vulnerability here because they're anticipating it and they're going to take action.

I don't see the big payoff on adding the language.

SPEAKER_00

I thank Council Member Herbold for bringing this amendment forward and I intend to support it.

It ties the up zones that are so profitable to big developers to the affordable housing contributions that those developers are required to pay.

I agree with the comments that Council Member Herbold has made and I wanted to make a few more.

of my own.

Those small affordable housing payments are the only part of this so-called grand bargain that mitigates the rampant displacement and gentrification driven by the for-profit real estate investments of big developers and other large investors.

The reality is there is no indication, no statistical information that the affordable housing built by MHA will even keep pace with the rate affordable housing is being lost to rent increases and redevelopment.

It is worth remembering where MHA comes from.

In 2014, after a grassroots movement won the $15 an hour minimum wage, it became clear that the next big struggle would be over the affordable housing crisis in Seattle.

To address this, activists, housing justice advocates, and community members knew that we would have to fight for a major investment in affordable housing, that is publicly funded affordable housing, paid for by progressive revenue sources like taxing big business and also fight for rent control because we know that the for-profit market has failed working people.

To cut across that movement, that incipient movement, Seattle's biggest developers and former mayor Ed Murray launched the so-called HALA committee.

On that committee were some affordable housing advocates, yes, but there were big developers and in the end, the developers were given a virtual veto over the recommendations of the committee.

At that time, the city council had passed a resolution supporting linkage fees, which is basically a type of impact fee that would have required all developers in the city to pay towards affordable housing.

The big developers, the for-profit developers on the HALA committee vetoed that.

They vetoed rent control.

They vetoed big business taxes.

MHA came out of the HALA committee because that was the thing that the big developers were willing to accept.

And the reason they were willing to accept it is because it is so limited.

It was delayed for years during the development boom.

And as a legal mechanism, it is extremely limited on how much affordable housing it can generate.

But the biggest victory for the big developers through HALA at the time was ideologically stalling the movement for rent control and for social housing by getting affordable, genuine affordable housing advocates to fight each other over who was more or less in favor of density.

This was what they call the grand bargain.

The next month council will be taking the final vote on creating the zoning changes and implementing the affordable housing requirements that are attached to those zoning changes.

However, as soon as the zoning is changed, what will stop the big developers from attempting to strip the affordable housing requirements out of the bill?

The argument I've heard from opponents of this amendment is that the developers have promised not to sue.

In my opinion, that is totally naive.

Because if big developers can make more profits by breaking a promise, then their track record is not that great.

They will break that promise.

Also, if the developers have promised not to sue, then they shouldn't object to this amendment, because then, in that case, the clawback clause will never be triggered.

And I don't understand how this amendment conveys a signal of moratorium.

And I will also point out in reference to President Harrell's comments, every ordinance has a severability clause that states what happens if some part of it is considered unlawful.

So I mean, it's virtually in every bill.

So I'm not clear why there would be an objection to this particular amendment.

So I support this amendment to defend the affordable housing requirements in MHE.

SPEAKER_08

Other colleagues before we turn it over to Council Member Herbold for some closing?

SPEAKER_16

Actually, I felt that the point I made about the signal or that Council Member Sawant made about the signal that this language sends to those developers who want the zoning but might be loathe to make the payment, that covered my last point I wanted to make.

SPEAKER_08

So process reminder, folks, this intent language has been properly moved and seconded.

So when you vote yes, you vote yes to put it inside the bill to keep the intent language as proposed inside the bill.

When you vote no, you vote to strip that language from being adopted, which means that never mix it into the bill to begin with.

I will be encouraging colleagues to vote yes on this because it has been implemented in other previous MHA zoning legislation.

It does signal that future councils have the ability to make future decisions based on whatever they think is the right thing for them.

And as I mentioned before, I don't love that folks are fundraising, folks that don't like MHA are fundraising off of that, but I also don't see this as any different from some of the other intent language that we've had in other resolutions around MHA.

So with that I would ask all those in favor of amendment B6 please say aye and raise your hand.

Aye.

Those opposed please say no and raise your hand.

The amendment passes on a five to three vote.

Before we move on to Amendment 1-8, I'd like to ask a process question of you, Councilmember Herbold.

I don't believe that Amendment 1-8 is an amendment that goes alongside any of the other urban village proposals slated for individual investments.

Do I have that correct?

Okay, so with your consent, we'll now talk about that map amendment, despite the fact we won't get to the District 1 amendments until a little bit later in the agenda.

Okay, so Ms. Panucci, would you again describe for us the Amendment 1-8, or have one of your able-bodied staff do so?

I'm going to turn it over to Yolanda.

SPEAKER_14

Okay, so Amendment 1-8 is the area west of Fauntleroy, south of Southwest Graham Street.

The proposal is to reduce the proposed zone designation in the Morgan Junction urban village south of South Graham Street and northwest of Fauntleroy Way Southwest to a less intense low-rise multifamily zone designation.

So it is currently zoned a single-family 5,000.

And in the council bill as is it, the proposal is for it to go to LR3 with M2 bump.

and the amendment would reduce that to LR2M1 bump.

SPEAKER_08

So in order to take action on this, I will move adoption of Amendment 1-8.

Okay.

Properly moved and seconded.

Why don't I turn to you, Council Member Herbold, to start the discussion.

SPEAKER_16

Thank you.

So this is the one and only map amendment for Font LeRoy that is related to MHA.

And again, this is currently a single family zoned area that my amendment would propose to up zone to low rise one.

The reason being is that an abrupt zoning change from single-family to low-rise three can create, one, harsh transitions between properties within the zoned area itself, two, harsh transitions with the surrounding zoning, which includes current single-family that is proposed to also be upzoned to low-rise one.

Under the current proposal, all other single-family areas would be upzoned to residential small lot or to low-rise one.

There's no other area in the Morgan Junction that is currently proposed to be upzoned by more than what we refer to as two steps up.

From the perspective of the community, this is an anomaly that in the executive proposed legislation is proposed to go from single-family again to low-rise three.

My proposed amendment to change the zoning from single-family to low-rise two increases the zoning of this area still.

more than any other up-zoned area for single-family within the Morgan Junction.

Again, it's single-family to Low-Rise 2, and the other areas are single-family to Low-Rise 1. This amendment would allow for increased development within the area, but create a less abrupt transition from the surrounding areas.

And just a larger map illustration that is this little piece in all of this other area, only this, is there a proposal for a change.

SPEAKER_08

I want to make sure that we were all tracking that one because the designations can be a little bit hard to follow.

The proposal, as I understand it, Ms. Ho, from the previous administration is to take a single-family area to a low-rise 3, and that this amendment would take a single-family area to a low-rise 2. Correct.

Do I have that correct?

And can you remind us again the height difference between a low-rise 3 and a low-rise 2 zone?

Oh, 15 feet.

15 feet, so in this instance, the maximum heights in a low-rise two zone is 30 feet then?

Low-rise two.

SPEAKER_28

In low-rise two, the maximum height is 40 feet, I believe.

40 feet.

In low-rise three, the maximum height is 55.

SPEAKER_08

I apologize for the mistake.

Thank you for the clarification.

Council Member Mosqueda, as the person who wanted to pull this for individual discussion, I assume you have some comments.

SPEAKER_32

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Again, I apologize that there was confusion last time.

Similar to the conversation that we'll be having shortly about all of the district amendments that are up for consideration that have been pulled, my intent is to make sure that we are looking at how we can increase housing availability to the maximum allowed under the existing EIS.

And I think somebody in public testimony last week said it best.

Any housing delayed is housing denied.

And so my intent is to really try to make sure that if we are allowed to go to LR3, we work with the community to make sure that there's processes in place to make sure that that transition happens in a way that meets the community's needs.

And again, it's not going to happen overnight.

Just because we create this new zoning designation doesn't mean that places are going to automatically change overnight.

But let's remember that this, in addition to some of the other places we're going to talk about later, is an area that is well served by transit.

It's close to amenities like grocery stores.

It would be a short bike ride or bus ride to the future light rail station.

And it's consistent with the approach that I think I and others on council have made that we'd like to make sure that we don't reduce zoning changes, even though it's still technically an up zone, it's a reduction in how much of an up zone it could be.

An important clarification.

Thank you, Mr. Freeman.

Council Member Herbold, anything that you'd like to add?

SPEAKER_16

Just that I feel really strongly that the work, not just that I've done with the community, but that our community leaders have done with other folks who haven't been as engaged in this effort should be honored.

I am really proud that I have five separate urban villages in my district.

And as it relates specifically to West Seattle, I am not getting the emails that I think everybody else is getting that are saying, Vote no on MHA.

The emails that I'm receiving are emails in support of amendments, and that is really a tribute to the hard work that community activists are doing to bring people along through this process.

And I want to honor that work, and I hope you will support this amendment.

SPEAKER_08

I'll be encouraging my colleagues to vote yes for this amendment as well.

When you look at the surrounding designation of these 18 or so parcels that are included in this amendment, on one hand, you've got a 40-foot high designation and on the other hand, you've got a 30-foot high designation.

I believe this will fit better with the current proposal, as opposed to a slightly jagged transition between what could be a 55-foot height building and a low-rise one building.

That starker transition, to me, says that this amendment, while sacrificing some density, to your point, Council Member Mosqueda, I think will effectuate a better change and high differences among the neighborhoods and is more consistent with kind of the tiering approach that we've had.

So I'll be encouraging my colleagues to vote yes on Amendment 1-8.

Any further discussion?

Oh, yes, please, Council Member Muscata.

SPEAKER_32

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I know you're trying to close this out so we can get to Group 2. I do want to clarify something that I'll probably end up reiterating later on as well, which is I, too, have had conversations with constituents across the city and I, too, have had meetings in districts throughout Seattle to talk to folks about what type of changes they'd like to see, whether it be a slight reduction in the zoning or an increase in the zoning, as we'll also talk about later with some of the proposed amendments that have come forward.

So I just want to be very clear that my position on these various amendments has been directly informed by Council.

conversations that I've had in office hours, in meetings, in letters that I've received from people who are asking us to be as bold as possible within the limitations of the EIS.

And while I am citywide and not in a district, I think it goes without saying that we have our ideas informed by constituents.

I just wanted to reiterate that point just to make sure that folks know that while we are citywide, we still have conversations directly in community and these positions are informed by those discussions that have been asking us to go up as much as possible as well.

SPEAKER_08

Okay, so again on a process reminder voting yes on this amendment, which is amendment 1 dash 8 includes the adoption of a low rise to zone in place of a low rise 3 zone in the fall in the right neighborhood.

So by voting yes, we we effectively change a single family neighborhood to a low rise to zone by voting.

No, you will change a single family neighborhood to a low rise 3 zone.

I think we got that.

Okay, so I will remind folks to please signify your vote by both saying yes and raising your hand.

So all those in favor, please say aye and raise your hand.

Aye.

Opposed?

No.

So 4-4 vote.

That tie means that we have a fail and we will continue with the executive's proposal, which is a low-rise three zone in the Fauntleroy neighborhood.

That concludes the individual votes that were pulled out for discussion from the Group 1 amendments.

The Group 2 amendments are all slated for individual votes, so I would alert my colleagues to the fact that we've got probably 20 so of votes here to consider so I would ask us to do our best to be mindful that I'm sure all of you have evening appointments and things that you would like to get to.

And let's try not to repeat ourselves as much as we can.

The first couple of votes are text amendment votes and I believe we'll start with Amendment A9.

Do I have that correct, Ms. Panucci?

SPEAKER_19

That is correct, and I'm going to return for a minute to the PowerPoint presentation and attempt to explain this amendment in a way that is more understandable than at the previous committee meeting.

So Amendment A-9 relates to green building standards and green building requirements in low-rise zones.

This amendment would increase the threshold above which projects in multifamily zones would have to meet a green building standard.

So under the existing code, projects in multifamily zones can achieve extra floor area by meeting a green building standard and providing additional public benefits, such as screening, parking, or providing affordable housing.

I'm going to use the low-rise one zone as the example.

So under existing rules, in a low-rise one zone, you can build to a .9 FAR without having to meet a green building standard.

You can build up to 1.1 FAR if you meet a green building standard.

So the important piece to follow here is the portion of my very basic structure that is highlighted in green.

So to build above the gray area, you need to meet a green building standard.

In the proposal, there is additional floor area incorporated through the zoning changes.

So the additional floor area that's added by the MHA bill is marked with the blue Xs.

So under the proposal, you would still need to meet a green building standard for building anything over 0.9 FAR, but you could build up to 1.3 FAR.

So where you need to meet the green building standard doesn't change, but you are now, MHA has applied as well as meeting the green building standard.

What the amendment would do is basically take what is required today and require a green building standard for the same amount of floor area that you're required to meet a green building standard today.

You could build up to 1.1 FAR without having to meet the green building standard.

You would be able to take advantage of the additional floor area added by the MHA bill.

And to build above that, you would need to build a green building.

You would need to meet a green building standard.

SPEAKER_08

So this one was pulled not because of opposition, but because of confusion.

Hopefully this was less confusing than the last time around.

But I look to my colleagues to see if you have any questions.

I'm not seeing any questions, so I would like to move for adoption of Amendment A-9.

Moved and seconded.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor, please say aye and raise your hand.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Okay, so that A-9 is adopted.

Ms. Panucci, B-7.

I feel like I'm calling a bingo game right now.

SPEAKER_19

We are going to move around a little bit here.

So, Quito will be teeing up this amendment.

SPEAKER_28

Was an amendment that was discussed at the last committee meeting I believe councilmember herbal may have a slightly different version of it a version to As a matter of fact I do this does not make substantive changes to the amendment, but make some changes recommended by the law department for consistency with sections of it amends so this amendment would require that at least 5% of revenue from the mandatory housing affordability commercial and and mandatory housing affordability residential program be allocated for capital investments in homeownership projects.

So this is both MHAC and MHAR.

What that would mean probably over the course of about 10 years is that about $21 million would be the floor for homeownership investment from the MHAC and MHAR program.

Both programs are estimated to generate about $425 million in payments over a 10-year period.

SPEAKER_08

Council Member Herbold, would you like to speak to this amendment?

SPEAKER_16

Sure, this is an amendment that I worked on with the Director of the Homestead Community Land Trust.

We currently have an earmark as far as levy funds of 9% for the levy funds, but we have no similar type of floor for homeownership units for MHA funds, and so this would set a floor.

allow the organizations like the Homestead Community Land Trust to use those funds for permanently affordable housing for low-income folks.

SPEAKER_08

One of the elements of our framework legislation asked for the Office of Housing to consider any payment options that we receive from developers to be used to develop like style units.

So for example, if a developer of a condo building were to choose to pay instead of perform, that our intention would be to use that payment to construct or facilitate the construction of affordable condo units.

So I see this as very in line with what we have adopted already as part of our framework legislation, considering I would guess and counsel central staff, wave your arms if I'm wrong about this, that somewhere in the neighborhood of five to 10% of the units that will be constructed as part of MHA will likely be homeownership units.

SPEAKER_28

I have no idea.

SPEAKER_16

That's the first time I've ever heard that.

SPEAKER_28

Who knows what the market will be like in the future.

SPEAKER_16

Again, the intent is just to create a floor here.

SPEAKER_08

Questions about this, colleagues?

Please, Council Member Mosqueda.

SPEAKER_32

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

So here, we get to agree.

Thank you, Council Member Herbold, for your work on this.

The only question I have, though, is how come we couldn't wait to put this in the administration and finance plan?

In a matter of weeks, we're going to be having a conversation in my committee about the administration and finance plan as it relates to the housing levy plan.

And it feels like this is a really important conversation to have with stakeholders at the table to talk about whether or not we're meeting the right funding threshold.

We know that there's 10% set aside in the levy, wondering if there's the possibility to, instead of putting it into this effort, to hold it for that more comprehensive discussion around the ANF plan in just a matter of weeks.

SPEAKER_16

Well, the ANF plan relates to the priorities and expenditures of levy funds.

And so this is intended to not address that source of funds, but only to address the source of funds that originate from MHA.

SPEAKER_32

So my concern is that there's a little bit of mixing of pots of dollars where we want to make sure that there's adherence to the same goals and standards.

I just, I'm, I would have preferred for the conversation to be held in our committee and didn't have a chance to talk to you, to the good council member before this meeting.

But my intent is to make sure that these type of robust discussions around the comprehensive approach to making sure that there can be more home ownership options as well as affordable rental units that we harmonize the rules and we ensure that there's synergy between the two funding streams where appropriate.

So that's part of I just want to flag what is coming up in our committee and concerned to have two different approaches.

SPEAKER_08

I don't see these issues as in conflict with each other, but rather using different revenue streams slightly differently with slightly different priorities, which I think is very consistent with the way that those revenue streams have been adopted.

However, I welcome the opportunity to have us talk through more the options available to us once MHA is adopted and we start to have more revenues come in that are more diverse than we have today.

But Council Member Gonzales, you'd like to weigh in.

SPEAKER_15

Yes, just very quickly.

I'm going to support B7.

I do think that it's important for us to continue to support pathways to affordable home ownership.

And I see this as Council Member Herbold's attempt to identify additional revenue sources and streams to be able to promote that stated value in the housing levy context.

That being set aside, I still think that there is an opportunity to have a conversation about how to align these two programmatic areas once that revenue is generated.

And I think that's what I'm hearing Council Member Mosqueda flag.

And so I think that that conversation really needs to happen in addition to a conversation about how we are making sure that both levy dollars and any dollars that come from MHA are being robustly and readily made available to people who might want to buy something other than a single-family home.

So I think a lot of times people get into the rut-in-the-mind set of thinking that the only type of home they could ever purchase is a single-family home, and the reality is that as we see increased construction of things like townhomes and duplexes and triplexes and condos.

There will be other types of housing models that can be purchased by people who are trying to get into that into the housing ownership area.

And so I want to make sure that whatever the conversation is in Councilmember Mosqueda's committee that we also include a component around how we're going to make sure that people understand that this is accessible to more than just single family homeowners.

SPEAKER_08

Well, I'm sure Tracy Ratzliff of our Council Central staff is listening in and will take note of those questions and directions, Councilwoman Gonzalez.

Further thoughts or questions on this, please, Councilwoman Mosqueda.

SPEAKER_32

I do want to say thanks again to the sponsor for bringing this forward.

I will be supporting this amendment.

I look forward to working with you as we create the ANF plan and seeing how we can get as many dollars as possible.

I think we're sharing the same goal here.

SPEAKER_08

So with your permission, Council Member Herbold, I will move adoption of Amendment B-7-2.

SPEAKER_16

I think we need the substitute in front of us.

SPEAKER_08

Do I need to just move adoption of Amendment B-7-2?

Is that fine?

The clerk's saying I'm okay?

All right.

So I'm going to move adoption of Amendment B-7-2.

SPEAKER_25

Second.

SPEAKER_08

Any further discussion on this, colleagues?

All those in favor, please say aye and raise your hand.

SPEAKER_25

Aye.

SPEAKER_08

Any opposed?

Okay, that is adopted.

Now I believe we move on to the map amendments, Ms. Panucci, and if I'm not mistaken, we're going to take them in a slightly different order than last time around.

So we're going to start with District 4, move to District 6, and then also go back to Districts 1, 2, and 3. So I believe that that's the sequence, although I'm sure if there's one amendment from District 5 and I believe that it's part of this package although it may be part of the comp plan package and we'll get to that when we when we need to get to it.

So Ms. Panucci let's start with amendments 4-2a and 4-2b.

SPEAKER_19

Amendment 42A and 42B both relate to the area north of Roosevelt High School.

42A would reduce the proposed zone designation from low-rise to RSL in the area north of Northeast 70th Street within the Roosevelt Urban Village.

Amendment 42B would reduce the proposed zone designation from low-rise 2 to low-rise 1 in the area between Northeast 68th and Northeast 70th Street.

SPEAKER_08

These amendments are available in the attachment three for those of you who are following along.

I've heard positively from folks in this community that they want to welcome more neighbors, but they feel like these transitions are going to be more appropriate with what they see in the neighborhood.

I wonder if there are further comments or questions from my colleagues.

Councilmember Miskita.

SPEAKER_32

All right.

Thank you, Mr. Chair So just to be consistent, I think that we've heard these comments before I'm going to continue to raise concerns about Reducing capacity to increase affordable housing or housing in general in an area that's near light rail that will open up Very soon and we want to make sure that folks can live in these asset-rich neighborhoods I think we should be as you I'm sure Can tell and have been working on throughout your entire tenure on this council try and increase as much capacity as possible.

I'm gonna be voting no.

SPEAKER_08

Any other comments, colleagues?

Okay, so we have, I will ask for adoption of, I will move adoption of amendments 4-2a and 4-2b.

Second.

Okay, it's been properly moved and seconded.

Any further discussion, colleagues?

Sorry, I lost my process brain there for a second.

All those in favor, please signify by saying aye and raising your hand.

Aye.

SPEAKER_31

Oh, I'm sorry.

SPEAKER_08

Oh, okay.

I think some folks might want to change their vote.

Let's rerun that one, Madam Clerk.

Should we call for, do a roll call on this one because of that confusion?

Okay, so let's do individual votes for these just to make it easier for folks now.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

So let's rewind the tape, and I will ask for adoption of Amendment 4-2-A.

Second.

Thank you.

So it's been properly moved and seconded.

Any further discussions on Amendment 4-2-A?

All those in favor, please signify by saying aye and raising your hand.

Aye.

Those opposed?

That is a 5-3 vote in favor, so 4-2-A is adopted.

I will now ask for support of Amendment 4-2-B.

It has been properly moved and seconded.

Any further discussions on that one?

All those in favor of 4-2-B, please signify by saying aye and raising your hand.

Aye.

Opposed?

So that also passes by a five to three vote.

Ms. Panucci, shall we move on to the 4-4 suite of options?

SPEAKER_19

Yes.

So amendments 4-4A and 4-4B are slightly different in that they are There are different options, so you will either want to consider Amendment 4.4a or 4.4b.

Amendment 4.4a would reduce the proposal in the areas where the Ravenna Cowan Historic District overlaps with the boundary of the existing Roosevelt Urban Village to M-level increases and would remove from the proposal any changes where the Historic District overlaps within the proposed urban village expansion areas.

Amendment 4B would remove all areas from the proposal anywhere where the Ravenna Cowan North Historic District overlaps with the existing or proposed Roosevelt Urban Village boundary.

SPEAKER_08

OK, colleagues, this is one where I think that it has been a complicated set of circumstances for yours truly as I evaluate the choices in front of us.

The existing proposal allows for more density by a light rail station, which is, I think, a value that we all support.

At the same time, there is an amendment on the table here for for a that would reduce those proposed zoning changes to a strict M level bump and effectively rezone this neighborhood nearby the light rail station to a residential small lot zoning.

However, in the intervening year, since the.

MHA final environmental impact statement was released in November of 2017. Neighbors in this community have circulated a petition and have been designated as a historic district.

So given that historic district designation and given the fact that in previous up zones in other parts of the city, we have not touched the neighborhoods that have had a historic designation.

I will be asking my colleagues to support Amendment 44B.

44B would not apply MHA into this historic district and would allow for the city to move forward with treating this historic district in the same way that it has treated historic districts throughout the citywide zoning changes previously adopted.

It is with a heavy heart that I ask for your support on that because I recognize that this neighborhood, my own neighborhood, is a neighborhood that has high access to opportunity.

It's a neighborhood that has low risk of displacement.

It's a neighborhood where we are the beneficiaries of a billion dollar investment that is slated to open in a light rail station in the next couple of years.

However, the circumstances of the historic designation are unique and they are new since the FEIS was adopted in November of 2017. And so those circumstances put me in the position where I think it is most prudent for us to adopt Amendment 4.4.B and that's where I will ask for your support.

So I will move adoption of Amendment 4.4.B.

So again, voting yes for this amendment would not implement MAJ in this historic district and would keep the existing single family zoning as is.

I look to my colleagues to see if there's any further discussion.

Okay, seeing no further discussion, I'll call for a vote.

All those in favor, please signify by saying aye and raising your hand.

Aye.

Any opposed?

That amendment is adopted.

Amendments 414 and 415, which relate to zoning changes in the Wallingford neighborhood, we have received in my office lots and lots and lots of questions, comments, and concerns relating to those two amendments.

So I would ask that we not consider those amendments today, and instead move to amendments 416 A and B, and ask you, Ms. Panucci, to describe those two amendments.

SPEAKER_19

Amendment 416A would increase the proposed low-rise 1 multifamily zone designation to low-rise 2 in the single-family zoned area north of North Motor Place in the Wallingford Urban Village.

And 416B would reduce the proposed low-rise multifamily zone designation to residential small lot in the areas west of Midvale Avenue North in the Wallingford Urban Village.

SPEAKER_08

So for my colleagues who are toggling back and forth between these two maps, this represents a neighborhood that is in between Aurora and Stoneway.

And several neighbors in this neighborhood have been working proactively over the last several months on effecting a set of zoning changes in their neighborhood that they thought would be consistent with one of the guiding principles for us, which is to say, how do we determine a set of zoning changes that potentially reduce some of the housing that's being proposed while offsetting that reduction by a proposed increase in other parts of the neighborhood.

So 416A and 416B correspond with each other in just such a way.

Neighbors have gotten together and worked on a proposal that would increase some of the proposed zoning capacity in the northern section of this neighborhood, nearby Stoneway, nearby 45th, nearby the a rapid ride line on Aurora and in exchange have asked for a slightly smaller designation in the area south of 43rd between Midvale and Whitman and north of 40th.

So the effect of these two changes we believe would be about a net net out of the zoning capacity and they kind of are in concert with each other where the neighborhood has come to us and suggested that a slight reduction in one place could be achieved through a slight increase in another part.

So given the discussion that we had earlier on a package of amendments, I will not ask for adoption of these two together, but ask for them individually and look to my colleagues to see if they have any thoughts or questions related to these two amendments before I call for a vote.

SPEAKER_15

I generally want to be true to the philosophy that I think it's really important for us to eek out every affordable housing unit we can through the mha given um Just given the just desperate need for additional affordable housing throughout the city.

And so i'm really looking at all of these um questions through that lens of how can we make sure that we stay true to um to getting as much uh development capacity as we can this is an example where based on your um representation council member johnson where I feel like we have the ability to be somewhat more flexible with the proposals ahead of us, seeing that there is no net effect to some of the additional affordable housing units that we will get as a result of 416A and 416B.

I feel comfortable supporting these two particular amendments.

But again, I'm sort of looking at all of these amendments through the lens of making sure that we are maximizing development capacity with this singular tool that is before us right now in the sort of philosophy that it's a unique opportunity for us to grab as much as we can in terms of those affordable housing units.

So I appreciate your flexibility with listening to neighbors in this particular area and also appreciate the neighborhood's willingness to accept additional density without losing affordable housing units.

SPEAKER_08

Further thoughts or questions?

Council Member Muscatin.

SPEAKER_32

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and I want to agree with Council Member Gonzalez.

I think it's important to note here that what you've done is you've underscored that we're trying to get a net zero impact on how much housing could be built.

That's number one.

But number two, you've also made sure that as the density changes throughout that zone, there's still equal access to transit.

Whether it's Aurora, whether it's Stoneway, you're ensuring that folks are not getting squished into one area, maybe creating a height regulation in a certain section and then very low regulations in others, which is some of the amendments we may see later.

You've created the ability to sort of spread out the housing still and ensure people have access to transit on both sides of those corridors, which I think is a really important way to ensure access to opportunity.

So for me, this does meet the goal of not reducing the number of housing units and also ensuring people have access to asset-rich neighborhoods, including transit options.

SPEAKER_08

Further discussions on amendments 416A and 416B?

I'm not seeing any, so I'm gonna ask for support for amendment 416A and B together as a trial.

Madam Clerk, you don't like that, okay.

She does not like that.

She does not like that, okay.

So I will ask for them individually and I will ask for adoption first of amendment 416A.

moved and seconded.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor please signify by saying aye and raising your hand.

SPEAKER_25

Aye.

SPEAKER_08

Any opposed?

Amendment 416 A is adopted.

I will also ask for your support and move adoption of Amendment 416 B.

Further discussion on that?

All those in favor please say aye and raise your hand.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Amendment 416B is adopted.

Ms. Panucci, amendment 417 we discussed in the same vein as amendments 414 and 415. Since that amendment has been put forward, we've received a lot of questions, comments, and concerns related to amendment 417. So I'll ask that we not consider that amendment today and instead move to amendment 419.

SPEAKER_19

Amendment 419 would remove from the proposal the area between 16th Avenue and 17th Avenue Northeast, south of Northeast 68th Street, so it would not expand the urban village boundary and would not rezone that area currently zoned single family.

SPEAKER_08

This neck of the woods folks is just right around the 10-minute walk shed from the proposed light rail station many neighbors have expressed an interest in supporting the zoning designation of a low-rise zoning to the West of 16th Avenue, but I've expressed concern about the zoning changes between 16th and 17th It's a small number of parcels here that have asked to be removed from the urban village boundary expansion We would still expand the urban village boundary, but we would just expand it by one block fewer than what is being proposed So I would ask your support on amendment 419 but open it up for questions or comments before we actually move for a vote on this Please councilwoman Gonzalez

SPEAKER_15

Thank you.

So if I understand the original proposal, the original proposal was to rezone this one block that is between 16th and 17th, just below 68th, the original proposal would have modified the zoning in this particular block to residential small lot, is that correct?

Correct.

And it is on the other side of 16th, I guess it's the west side, because these are all set.

According to the compass.

On the west side of 16th, I'm seeing on this map before us that there's LR2RC, is that correct?

And then NC255 and LR1RC.

Correct.

SPEAKER_19

The zone designations that you're reading that are underlined are what's proposed in the bill.

SPEAKER_15

It's what's proposed in the bill and it's going from single-family zones to these particular designations, or from something else to these designations?

SPEAKER_19

Some of the areas, the NC area is going from NC 40 to NC 255. I'll be honest, I can't read all of the...

I see the little small one, yeah.

Yeah, the small font, I think most of the area that's going from RSL along to the west of 16th Avenue is currently zoned single-family.

I can't speak with confidence without seeing the rest of the map of what the LR2 zone currently is. but most of the area that's proposed for RSL that's subject to the amendment and just to the west of that area is currently is on single family.

SPEAKER_15

Okay.

Again, I'm just, I'm gonna signal concern about backing away from the original proposal to move this block to RSL.

I think it's a good example of some sort of gentle, if you will, density in this particular area that seems to make sense to me in terms of the spirit of wanting to have some additional tapering in some of these urban villages that lead into single-family zones, because on the east side of 17th, I'm assuming those are all single-family home zones, correct?

Correct.

Okay.

So, again, I'm sort of looking at all of these through the lens of maximizing development capacity where we can maximize it while at the same time making sure that, at least from my view of these maps, that we're staying true to some of those tapering concepts that we have described in other areas.

And so, for that reason, I'm not going to support 419.

SPEAKER_22

Any further thoughts or questions, colleagues?

SPEAKER_08

Please, Council Member McShaw.

SPEAKER_22

And I'm sure that this has come up, Allie and gang that are talking about this, but would you explain one more time why just this little section?

Why this little section is the subject of the amendment?

Correct.

I mean, why not go further north?

Why have it at all?

So I can't remember why, and I know you brought this up before, but I can't remember what's there now and why it's an issue.

SPEAKER_19

I would defer to the amendment sponsor on why this area is proposed to be out.

In general, the proposal looked at the walk shed areas and looked at expanding urban villages based on that.

This is right on the edge.

And I'll turn it over to Councilmember Johnson.

SPEAKER_08

Our current urban village boundary in this neighborhood stops at 15th Avenue, based on the planning department's walkshed analysis that was proposed to move two blocks further to the east to 17th Avenue, but that the walkshed stopped at about 68th Street.

So as you can see, it goes a little bit further north to about 70th Street, again, within that 10-minute walkshed of the light rail station.

Expansion area therefore is a two block expansion from 15th to 17th.

Some neighbors have come and asked for reconsideration and a reduction of the expansion from two blocks down to one.

So this amendment was put forward by me to comply with a request that we consider reducing the expansion area from 15th to 16th as opposed to expanding the urban village from 15th to 17th.

SPEAKER_22

Okay, so looking at the whole and as we've just gone through this with Calen Park and the historic district, how many units are actually going to be impacted here?

Because I know and I'm really doffing my hat to Councilmember Gonzalez and what she's saying.

We're all trying to maximize as much property here for appropriately sized up zones as possible.

I'm not understanding why this particular block and a half, especially after we've just decided to take out quite a big chunk around the historic district.

SPEAKER_19

So the combination of amendments proposed that affect the Roosevelt Urban Village result in a decrease of seven estimated affordable units.

However, I would just remind everyone that this is not a parcel by parcel level development.

So the assumption is if this area is taken out, more development may happen in other portions of the urban village if there is capacity and identified redevelopable sites.

So it isn't a sort of you take this one parcel out of the proposal and the estimate drops.

It's based on a number of assumptions.

So what the effects of any individual parcel amendment or even a one block amendment will be pretty moderate in terms of the model run and so I would again Just note that the model is based on a set of assumptions and what level of redevelopment actually occurs in the future will be how many units we see.

So, for example, even if this area is rezoned, if no development occurs in this area, there would be no contributions to affordable housing.

whether a parcel is rezoned to RSL, low-rise 1, or low-rise 2, if that parcel is redeveloped and is built, if it's rezoned to LR2, but the developer chooses to build a smaller development, it will result in a smaller contribution through the MHA proposal.

So it really is, we use the best available information to try to provide some information to estimate what this proposal could do.

But once building actually occurs is when we'll know what it

SPEAKER_08

And to effectuate that change has been a long-standing.

buildings to be dilapidated and overrun over the last several years.

So to Ms. Panucci's point, the removal of this one block may result in more rapid redevelopment of those underutilized, boarded up, vacant structures.

It may have no impact whatsoever.

I think we're all kind of doing our best guessing here about what this looks like.

People have made good points, both pro and con, and I don't want to belabor the discussion much longer, considering we still have a long evening ahead of us.

But I would open it up, of course, to other comments or questions from other colleagues and hope that Ms. Panucci's example was sufficient for you, Council Member Banks.

Further questions or discussions?

Yes, please, Council Member Muscato.

SPEAKER_32

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the analysis and I think in the central staff memo overall, we still have, not just in this example, but we have to grapple with the environmental justice issues that arise when we decide not to include additional upzoning in certain areas, making the assumption that these zoning changes will result in growth elsewhere.

Sometimes that growth elsewhere is along arterials where there's high amounts of pollution and You know not as much access to transit and some of our asset-rich neighborhoods So I I just want to put a flag in that I appreciate that that might be Somewhat of a balancing act but in in addition to that we have gone through a very robust process with community over the last few years to identify how we can place housing as close as possible in proximity to schools and transit and our community assets.

So for me, again, in line with what Councilmember Gonzalez shared earlier, I think this is another example of where we do want to stay true to that principle and I don't want to do anything that would reduce the overall number.

So I will unfortunately be voting no.

Further discussions, colleagues?

SPEAKER_15

I just want to confirm that the weird light brown color in the menu of browns that lay on this map amendment.

We seriously need to pick different colors.

But anyway, setting that issue aside, the light brown color, those are the urban village boundaries, right, as proposed?

SPEAKER_19

The areas that are white are outside of the urban village.

The areas that are colored are within the proposed urban village boundary.

SPEAKER_15

I understand what you're saying.

I'm smirking for a different reason.

So I think, you know, again, I think that we have to, as a city, either be committed to the urban village growth model or not.

And to me, this is an example of where we need to be committed to that urban village growth strategy.

And we have gone through the exercise of identifying where urban villages are going to be for purposes of funneling and targeting our growth in those particular areas.

This is an example, I think, of where the RSL came from because we wanted to sort of be true to the concept around tapering in a way that makes sense as we are looking at the boundaries of our existing urban villages.

So I think that the residential small lot approach is a smart approach.

that still gets us increased development capacity within the boundaries of an urban village in a manner that meets both the principles related to increased development capacity to meet our affordable housing goals, but also with respect to making sure that we're staying true to some of the more design focused issues as it relates to urban villages.

I just, I feel really strongly that we need to reject 419. I love you Chair Johnson, but I can't support you.

On this one.

SPEAKER_08

The feeling is mutual and I will take no offense.

And as you can see, Council Member Herbold, I'm glad that we had a chance to switch spots this time around.

People will run out of energy by the time we get to D1.

So I'd like to call for a vote on this one.

And so in order for me to do so, I'd like to officially move for adoption of Amendment 419. It's been moved and seconded.

Is there any further discussion associated with this?

All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

SPEAKER_16

No.

SPEAKER_08

The amendment fails on a 5-3 vote.

I believe we have an amendment in the fifth district, but maybe I'm wrong about that.

I look to you, Mr. Whitson.

SPEAKER_09

That's part of the comp plan package, so we'll talk about it later.

SPEAKER_19

And then amendments that are not on the agenda that are to be added are to be considered after we get through the individual votes that are on the on the agendas.

So, yes.

I defer to the chair.

SPEAKER_21

We're ready to go on this, but I was waiting for Mr. Keedle.

Okay.

I'm just making a plea here because I don't want to be here till nine o'clock tonight.

SPEAKER_08

Duly noted Council Member Morris.

Thank you.

Duly noted.

So let's move on then to amendments discussions in Crown Hill District Six.

SPEAKER_28

So amendments 6-3 through 6-10 would make changes to what's proposed in the Crown Hill residential urban village.

Just to refresh your memories, as part of the consent package, among other things, the council voted to increase the height of commercial zones generally at the intersection of 15th Avenue Northwest and 85th.

So there's an increase in what we're going to be talking through mostly in 6-3 and 6-3 through 6-10 are decreases from a low-rise to a residential small lot.

So 6-3 is at the north end of the Crown Hill Urban Village, and this would reduce the proposed zone designation from low-rise 1M1 to RSLM.

6-4 is on the, so here we are on the east side of 15th Avenue Northwest.

This would also reduce a proposed low-rise 2 M1 designation to RSL.

This is also at the northern end of the Crown Hill Urban Village.

6-5, jumping over here to the west side of the urban village, this would transition by reducing a low-rise 2 M1 designation to low-rise 1 M1.

6-6, this is the companion piece to that, so this is the further transition going from low-rise 1 and 1 to RSLM.

At the edges of the urban village, the RSL designation would be buying the single-family zones.

Moving to 6-7, or 6-8, sorry.

We are now, I might have gotten, I might have gotten my directionals wrong here, but we are now on the, we're still on the west side of the urban village, just below the 85th street intersection.

This is another transition moving from low-rise to M1, moving away from the higher heights on 15th Avenue Northwest.

This would change the low-rise to M1 designation to low-rise 1 M1.

6, go ahead to the next one.

6-9, this is the area just west of that.

This would change to Low-Rise 1, a proposed Low-Rise 1 M1 zone designation to RSLM.

You can see further RSL zoning to the west of this change.

Go ahead.

6-10, now we're on the other side of 15th Avenue Northwest.

This would change what's proposed which is proposed to be a low-rise 1M1 designation to RSLM.

This is south of 85th, so this is generally the area that is south and east of the Safeway, if that helps you picture where it is.

I think that is it, Eric.

Is that right?

SPEAKER_07

That is.

SPEAKER_26

Well, there's a 618.

SPEAKER_28

That's a different area.

So those are the the amendments that are proposed for Crown Hill that are not part of the consent package.

SPEAKER_08

And Mr. Freeman will you remind us there was an amendment that was part of the consent package related to Crown Hill that effectuated some taller zoning in the neighborhood.

SPEAKER_28

That is correct yes so generally at the intersection of Northwest 85th and 15th Avenue Northwest there was a proposed 55 foot height zone and the council has voted to amend the bill to have that zone be 75 feet in height.

SPEAKER_08

Great.

So in absence of Council Member O'Brien, he asked me to read a few things and then we'll get into some questions from colleagues.

Council Member O'Brien regrets that he can't be here and he wants to thank everyone for considering the Crown Hill amendments and working so hard to ensure the new development results in affordable housing in our city.

For the last year and a half, he's worked closely with many people in Crown Hill to understand concerns and opportunities that propose a set of amendments that could generally maintain proposed density and prevent displacement.

He's appreciated the thoughtfulness, openness, and intention of the Crown Hill community members, particularly working with the Crown Hill Urban Village for Smart Growth, and believes that he's taken a holistic approach to understanding the urban village as a whole.

And while some parts have already been included in the consent package, as was mentioned by Mr. Freeman, He sees these amendments, the suite of amendments, if you will, between 6-3 and 6-10 as part of a package that moves to a more thoughtful outcome.

His analysis from spending multiple days on the streets with neighbors who genuinely want to see their neighborhood grow and change, but who are worried about their ability to be part of the new neighborhood they envision, and is hopeful that we can move forward to create more opportunities for housing, community planning, and an inclusive and equitable urban village in Crown Hill.

I'd like to add my support for these amendments because I believe that the Crown Hill community has come together for the last several years and done exactly what we asked them to do when we started this process.

When we started this process in 2016 with a set of focus groups and urban design workshops, the Crown Hill neighborhood banded together.

They started working together on a set of proposals.

And rather than entering into litigation with the city or appeals associated with the city, they continued to work hard with their council member and to propose a set of amendments that they believed were more consistent with both their neighborhood plan but also implementation of MHA.

We'll get into some other examples, I think, of that when we move into West Seattle.

But in this neighborhood, I think that the Crown Hill neighborhood deserves a lot of kudos for being very proactive in welcoming new neighbors.

and balancing, as we have in earlier discussions, the delta difference between some proposed zoning changes that are slightly lower than what was proposed, and balancing that with proposed zoning changes that are higher than what has been proposed in the executive's proposal.

So with that opening salvos from both Council Member O'Brien and myself, I have you first in the queue, Council Member Baxter.

SPEAKER_22

Thank you.

And thank you, Council Member Johns, for this.

And I do want to channel Council Member O'Brien.

I believe that the vote on this is similar to what we were doing with the Wallingford a moment ago, where we were allowing some areas to go up higher and some we had agreed to reduce.

And since I really think that the community has worked in good faith on this one, saying we're going to go higher in some areas and a little bit lower in others, that I want to keep the package together.

And I will be supporting you and Council Member O'Brien in this.

SPEAKER_08

I look to other colleagues for questions or comments.

SPEAKER_32

Before comments, may I just ask a quick question?

A question of central staff.

Is that accurate?

Is there up zones being proposed above the original proposal to couple with the down zones?

Because as I read it, I thought it was all just reductions in the zoning.

SPEAKER_28

No.

So in the consent package, there was an increase in zoning in the commercial sort of core, more or less.

So generally at the intersection of 15th Avenue, Northwest and Northwest 85th Street.

So there's an increase in height and density there.

That's something that the council has just voted to approve.

SPEAKER_08

Please continue.

SPEAKER_32

I think that's an important distinction to make.

As it relates to the amendment we just talked about that Council Member Johnson walked us through with the two amendments that really allowed for density to be spread over what is it about a four block period there between Stoneway and Aurora.

We were really seeing the density spread out.

What we've just heard is that instead of having density spread and equitably shared in the area, it would be instead squeezed to that corridor of 15th.

And I do want to start with this.

Number one, I think it's important that the individuals in Crown Hill have reached out, have tried to have a proactive conversation with us, have been very collaborative.

I want to reward that type of engagement with council.

And I appreciate that Councilmember O'Brien has been trying to work diligently to hear some of the concerns.

I, myself, our office went out and had conversations through Aaron House, who's working as lead for us on these issues and talked directly with the folks in Crown Hill and really appreciated the conversation.

So just want to start with that.

However, when we look at neighborhood changes that would squish the zoning changes to an area along 15th, which we know is generally considered to be a high traffic area with noise and pollution, instead of looking at how we more equitably share where housing can be accommodated across our neighborhood in that area, it doesn't feel like an equitable way to best serve our community.

I want to make sure that we're looking at strategies to create diverse opportunities for those who are homeowners and renters.

And a lot of the folks who live in Crown Hill that I've talked to over the last year and a half are a diverse mix of renters and homeowners.

I think it's important that we take the opportunity to create not just access to housing along 15th But really try to think about how we more equitably distribute that housing throughout the neighborhood Had it been a proposal like councilmember Johnson had suggested like the good chair had suggested where we were seeing that density spread out over blocks versus just concentrated along this high traffic corridor.

I might be more supportive, but as it stands right now, I think this package, I'll speak to all the amendments, so I don't do it one at a time.

So items 6.3 through 6.10, as a package, reduce missing middle housing.

I think it would result in a reduction in townhomes and condos and affordable apartments.

And the type of missing middle housing that we're precisely trying to build with the original proposal, so unfortunately I'm not I'm not able to get to yes on these please counselor was

SPEAKER_21

Thank you.

I want to echo some of the concerns of Councilor Mosqueda that we've talked about a lot, but I just want to share that I do respect the overarching goals and needs of the mandatory housing affordability and what we're trying to do.

And again, reiterate that it is a citywide responsibility to equitably share the load of more housing and density.

I have concerns about these seven amendments in Crown Hill, all in reduction.

I do respect the council members, particularly Council Member Herbold, who have stepped forward to honor the needs of their district, but I think this goes beyond just Amir saying I just believe in the philosophy and I'm not going to, and I'm going to just disregard what the, particular districts need or want, I think we have to err on the side that everybody is responsible for changing and creating density and equitable because that's what got us to this place.

And I'm just going to note this because a lot of these neighborhoods, of course they can organize and of course they're going to find a way to find a way to opt out or reduce their responsibility or their role or their, how they would like to see their neighborhoods grow.

And so I know what happens when you do that because then the burden shifts to those neighborhoods that we are trying to protect and particularly from displacement.

And so when I look at all seven of these amendments, it raises a concern to me.

I don't want to go through each one, and those are just my overall comments.

And so I don't, I have a hard time supporting all seven of these.

So I'll leave it at that.

SPEAKER_08

Thank you.

Other colleagues who might want to offer suggestions.

Council Member Herbold, I apologize that I didn't have you in the queue.

SPEAKER_16

I just want to again reiterate that the legislation that is before us today is the, to my knowledge, the boldest inclusionary zoning legislation in the country.

It not only includes all areas of the city where there's both residential and commercial development, but it takes that step in one false swoop.

Most communities do with inclusionary zoning much like we did with incentive zoning.

We looked at area by area.

This is a huge bold new step.

Every community within an urban village is doing its part under these proposals, including with the amendments.

With an RSL zoning, There is an MHA requirement.

And so I think one of the things, the historical things that we have to remember when we talk about eliminating single family zoning within urban villages is, again, six months ago, most of our community members within single family zones were asking a lot of questions about that.

Now there's an embracing of this new zoning designation.

I really think it's a huge culture change for the city that will pave the way for us to continue to have this conversation about single family outside of urban villages.

And just as, I think, historical reminder of what an urban village is and why we've created them.

And that's not to say that we should not look at what the impacts are of urban villages.

They were created many, many years ago, but they were created as a way to accept growth.

The urban villages, when they were designated, were saying, we agree that we are going to accept growth by merit of being an urban village.

And that's how we implemented the requirements of the growth management plan that was adopted by the state legislature.

We adopted that strategy at the time.

It was in 94. In the mid to late 1990s, some Seattle neighborhoods said yes to playing a role in Seattle's growth.

and participated in that strategy, developed neighborhood plans, which accompanied those up zones.

Those are the neighborhoods we're talking about today.

But we also have to remember that there are neighborhoods that don't have urban villages, which is why we're not talking about them today, and why we don't see any figures for the impacts of MHA or not implementing MHA in those neighborhoods, because they're not even part of the discussion.

And I just, I feel...

I feel sad that this huge change that we're talking about making together as a city and in compromising that it's being characterized as watering down this great new bold step that we're taking.

SPEAKER_08

Council Member Sawant.

SPEAKER_00

Thank you.

I just again, just to remind everybody we are talking about Council Member O'Brien's amendments that take the zoning to residential small lot and don't stay at single family.

And I'm not clear, I mean, council members just voted for the Wallingford amendments.

I'm not clear why you wouldn't support these ones.

I mean, I'll tell, I would like to share with the public why I will be supporting these amendments.

It's very clear from conversations with Council Member O'Brien and also just from having studied the issue that it's a very positive situation where it's a working class area, it's a high displacement risk area.

We've seen working-class renters and working-class homeowners work together, you know, really build together towards something that they strongly feel is actually good to reduce displacement and make sure that we also increase density.

And I'm also encouraged by the testimony from 350.org.

Thank you for clarifying that.

the reason the reasons you're supporting it and that really helps me to understand which way I should go and so I will be supporting these amendments.

SPEAKER_08

Council Member Mosqueda.

SPEAKER_32

Thank you very much Mr. Chair.

So I just want to reiterate because I think it's important to underscore why this feels much different than Council Member Johnson, Mr. Chair, your amendments.

It's an equity issue.

We can't just ask those who are probably going to be renters and lower income on the scale to be living along the 15th Avenue corridor and not creating affordable housing in the neighboring blocks as originally proposed.

So I just want to make sure I'm super clear about why I think that this is a different approach than previously discussed in District 2. One I understand is informed by individuals who came forward but still does not meet the equity definition that I would like to see as we apply our analysis to each one of the amendments.

So to be very clear, this is an equity issue as it relates to who will be able to live in that neighborhood and by what assets.

SPEAKER_08

So I was originally going to propose that we discuss these as part of a package.

Oh, I'm sorry, Council President.

SPEAKER_03

I was just saying I'm supporting the amendments as you do your vote count.

SPEAKER_08

Councilmember Gonzalez, you pulled your microphone forward.

That usually indicates a question or comment.

SPEAKER_15

Thank you.

I just wanted to highlight that there's been a characterization of Crown Hill as being a high displacement area, but according to the central staff memo, it's a low displacement risk area with a high access to opportunity.

And when we had this discussion, I believe, A week or two ago.

I am losing the track of time these days, but there was a question about what the impact of these amendments would be in terms of the modeling around forecasting the number of potential MHA units that would be produced as a result of this package or suite of amendments.

Now the memo that I have before me that I think we all have before us indicates that and again at the time when we were debating this there wasn't an answer to that particular question.

There was a representation that was made by Councilmember O'Brien that he believed that this would be a net zero effect because we were bumping up along 15th Avenue while proposing a reduction in development capacity in other areas in the Crown Hill Urban Village.

Now that I've seen the evaluation by central staff, I see that the amendments as proposed by Council Member O'Brien would result in a difference of a negative 23 MHA income restricted units in the Crown Hill Urban Village.

And again, that creates concern for me because I think MHA is one small tool for us to use that will produce real units for real people who are trying to move into Crown Hill or remain in the Crown Hill urban village area.

And I become really concerned when we're talking about over two dozen affordable housing units that are going to be lost as a result of this particular or two dozen affordable housing units that would be lost or projected to not be produced as a result of the proposed reduction in development capacity as proposed in this suite of amendments.

SPEAKER_28

One thing to add, Council Member Gonzalez, is that the analysis I think the analysis shows two dozen, you're correct.

That analysis also assumed that a couple of additional areas would be down zoned and those areas have since been dropped.

So it would be a somewhat lower number, probably not by much, but somewhat lower number.

SPEAKER_15

And again, I've been trying to be really consistent in my evaluation of these amendments to support both the city's intent and purpose of moving in the urban village direction and funneling growth into those particular areas.

Because we're not having a conversation about any other areas in the city, this is the only option we have before us to drive development capacity in an equitable way.

within the boundaries of designated urban villages.

And when we begin to step away from that construct, even if there has been robust and there has been robust neighborhood engagement with all of these urban village plans, I mean, I still think that it's important for us to stay committed to the urban village growth strategies and to, again, not leave any potential MHA affordable housing units on the table as we're considering these proposals.

SPEAKER_08

Further thoughts colleagues?

I'm not seeing any.

As I was about to say before I forgot that I needed to recognize people who are in the queue.

I plan on moving these all as a package but given the clerk's concerns about package related votes why don't we start with Amendment 6-3.

So I will ask for adoption of Amendment 6-3.

has been moved and seconded.

Any further discussion about Amendment 6-3?

All those in favor, please signify by saying aye and raising your hand.

Aye.

SPEAKER_15

Aye.

SPEAKER_08

Aye.

SPEAKER_99

Aye.

SPEAKER_08

Aye.

also passes on a 5-3 vote.

Amendment 6-5, I would move for adoption of Amendment 6-5.

Further discussion?

All those in favor, please say aye and raise your hand.

Aye.

Those opposed?

No. 5-3 again, in favor.

Amendment, wait a minute, I just did 6-6.

Did I do 6-5 or 6-6?

I just did 6-5.

Okay, sorry.

Keeping track for myself.

I'd move adoption of Amendment 6-6.

Further discussion on that one?

All those in favor, please say aye and raise your hand.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

That amendment also passes 5-3.

Amendment 6-10, I will move adoption on amendment 6-10.

Any further discussion on that?

All those in favor, please say aye and raise your hand.

Aye.

Opposed?

Also passes on a 5-3 vote.

So we are concluded with the Crown Hill amendments, Mr. Freeman.

SPEAKER_28

So moving on here to Fremont.

This is map 618. This is an area you can actually sort of see a little squiggle that represents that an area that is just south and includes patrol underneath the Avenue bridge the proposed amendment here would Reduce the up zone from a low-rise 3m1 designation to low-rise 1m This is in part informed by some of the information in the addendum about potentially historic resources in this area

SPEAKER_08

I missed the little trail off there, Mr. Freeman.

Can you start that?

Can you finish that one again?

SPEAKER_28

I will.

Part of this is my understanding of Council Member O'Brien's thinking in sponsoring this amendment.

This is an area just south of the Fremont Troll, includes actually where the Fremont Troll is, underneath the Aurora Avenue Bridge.

It would reduce the proposed zone designation from low-rise 3M1 to low-rise 1M.

And part of the thinking behind the reduction has to do with some information in the addendum to the FEIS about historic resources that identifies potential historic resources here.

So not necessarily landmarked resources, but resources that could be eligible for landmarking at some point in the future.

SPEAKER_08

So I believe we talked about this as being a subset of houses that have some historic character associated with them.

I believe it kind of in the Troll Avenue north adjacent area.

It's a small set of parcels here, but I look to my colleagues to see if there's any further discussion or questions related to this one.

I'll be supporting it.

It's a small set of changes in Neck of the Woods that I think won't likely see a whole lot of redevelopment, but we've just adopted some changes nearby with a fluctuation of changes in the Wallingford neighborhood between Aurora and Stoneway.

So I'm just at this point filibustering to see if anybody wants to to check in, but I'm not seeing any.

Oh, yes, please, Councilwoman Muscat.

SPEAKER_32

Mr. Chair, I'm going to again vote no.

I mean, this is quite literally a dense area that I believe is ideal to build additional housing.

I also want to indicate how close in proximity this housing is to individuals who may be working at Google, Tableau, Adobe.

These are areas where we know folks who, if they're moving to our city, are probably going to be renters.

We want to create affordable housing in the neighborhood so that people are not getting displaced if they're coming in with higher wage workers coming into the area.

We want everybody to be able to walk to work, but especially for the community that's there, we want to make sure that as development happens, that we're creating affordable housing, that we're getting funds in hand, and that we're creating more opportunities for folks to walk to places of employment, transit, grocery stores, and there's a public library.

So thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll be voting no.

SPEAKER_08

Any further thoughts, please, Council Member Meeks.

SPEAKER_22

Thank you.

I'm concerned about this like I was on the one on 15th Northeast.

I don't understand why.

So can you bring forward one more time for me, what is the rationale for that little squiggle to be down zoned?

SPEAKER_28

Yeah, so the rationale has to do with the location of potentially historic resources there, not necessarily landmarked resources, but resources that could be eligible for landmarking.

There are a lot of things that need to happen before something is determined to be a landmark, but the survey...

and additional information in the addendum to the FDIS indicates that there is a concentration of those types of structures in this area.

SPEAKER_22

So, well, if I can just ask you this question, Keto, why would we do this?

I mean, in the past, this number of votes, like what we're looking at Ravenna, Cowan area, and I know with Mount Baker, it is either been historically landmarked or newly landmarked.

Why are we trying to carve something out that potentially could be landmarked?

What's the rationale there?

SPEAKER_08

I would ask the Prime Sponsor to call in from being not present for today, but I don't expect you to have to respond to that if you don't want to, Mr. Freeman, in Councilmember O'Brien's absence, that you can do a good Councilmember O'Brien impression, though.

SPEAKER_28

Sure.

I mean, it's just it's one factor among many that the Councilmembers could consider in deciding whether or not to change his own designation for an area.

Beyond that, there's a wide range of other factors that the council could consider as well.

SPEAKER_22

I apologize for putting you on the spot, Kilo.

I thought that somehow somebody had come up with a really good rationale, which I'm not yet seeing.

SPEAKER_08

I'm going to move to Council Member Herbold next and then you, Council Member Gonzalez.

SPEAKER_16

Yes, I have heard it said on the part of central staff that exempting or the reduction of increased up zones in areas that may be at some time in the future designated as landmarks or part of historic zones might actually put more of a target on them rather than doing anything to protect them.

Is that more or less what you've been telling us, Ali.

SPEAKER_19

Yeah, I think I was like, I think I'm being, I think I'm the central staffer who may have said that.

That was in a discussion between removing an area entirely that has potential or existing historic landmarks versus modifying the proposal.

So if you take an area out, let's say we took this area out of the proposal altogether, it would be one of very few areas in the city that are currently zoned multi-family where MHA wouldn't apply.

And that is aside from areas within existing historic districts that this council has already decided not to apply MHA.

However, I'd also note that those areas have other protections in place and controls on redevelopment if it is a locally designated district.

So in this situation, it is decreasing the proposed zoning change but it is not removing it entirely from the proposal.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_08

Council Member Gonzalez.

SPEAKER_15

Um I apologize for my delayed reaction there but I'm I'm I'm struggling I'm a little confused as to what we are doing here so six 18 would reduce this particular area from a proposed low-rise 3 M1 bump multifamily to low-rise 1 with just an M bump, which means we're receiving a lower contribution to MHA along this particular little strip.

Right?

That's correct.

Okay.

And then the this is I just want to be clear this is this is not been officially recognized or designated by any agency responsible for said designations for either historic district purposes or as a historic resource.

SPEAKER_28

So yeah I don't want to sort of paint a picture of this entire area as being a neighborhood that could potentially be a district at some point in the future, although that may be a future outcome.

Within this area, however, there are some structures that have been identified in the addendum to the FEIS as being potential landmarks.

So whether or not they would actually be landmarked would be up to the landmark board.

The landmark board would have to review any nominations of any structures here.

but they have at least been identified as having the potential to be a landmark.

That's not true for every single building within this area.

It's only true for more than a few, but enough that at least for Council Member O'Brien, he wanted to bring it forward for your consideration.

But obviously I cannot speak for him, but that was in part the rationale for putting this amendment on the table.

SPEAKER_15

And I appreciate that.

I'm not asking you to speak for Council Member O'Brien, but I am trying to get at some of the facts that are underlying the representations of his position for advancing Amendment 618. And what I'm hearing is that in the FEIS, there was identified a potential that someday maybe someone will nominate this certain houses or some other structures within this particular swath of land to potentially be designated as a landmark, but that has not yet occurred.

There's been no nomination.

SPEAKER_28

Correct.

Okay.

It is just the potential for landmarking.

SPEAKER_15

OK.

And in terms of the historic district component, this is not currently a historic district.

SPEAKER_28

Correct.

SPEAKER_15

And we're not aware of there having been an application or a petition to have this area designated as a historic district.

I am not personally aware of that.

OK.

So I apologize for cross-examining you.

But it's literally one of my favorite things to do, which is why I'm doing it.

Thank you, Ketel.

So, I mean, I'm asking these questions because I think it's really important for this council to not inadvertently move policies in a direction that will establish what I think is a very dangerous precedent that will allow people who are resistive to seeing growth in their urban villages to use this argument that there might potentially someday, in theory, hypothetically, be a petition for establishment of a historic resource within a particular part of an urban village.

I really feel like this is the top of a slippery slope, and we're going to find ourselves in a situation in the future of of butting up against this argument the next time we want to reconsider or consider, excuse me, the next time we want to consider modifications to our zoning laws.

And I just want us to be incredibly careful and judicious about not establishing a precedent where we will be faced with this argument by some folks in community groups who are very sophisticated in leveraging these types of arguments.

So I'm gonna be voting no for 618 in large part because I am very cautious and apprehensive of establishing a precedent that allows people to assert without any actual documentation or proof that this area is officially a historic resource.

SPEAKER_08

So as Councilmember O'Brien's proxy for today, I will call for adoption of this.

I will move it to be adopted and I will then vote against that motion because of many of the reasons that are outlined by our colleagues but I will add that I represent about two-thirds of this district and I think that many of the issues that were raised by our two city-wide council members are very applicable to this neck of the woods and I think that it is better served as a low-rise three-zone than what is in the proposal.

So with that I will on the one hand call for adoption of move for adoption of amendment 618. So it's been properly moved and seconded, and I am going to be voting no.

So I just want to make that very clear, but I want to get this in front of us so we can move on to District 1. So all those in favor of Amendment 618, please signify by saying aye.

There seem to be none.

Those opposed?

Nay.

The amendment fails 8-0.

So I believe that concludes the District 6 amendments and let's move on to District 1 amendments and I think we're going to start in the West Seattle Junction.

SPEAKER_14

Yes, so the next five amendments, one, two through one, six are all in the West Seattle Junction.

And they are, so the proposal is to reduce all proposed rezones from single family within the West Seattle Junction urban village to residential small lot.

That's it, you're on it, all right.

SPEAKER_08

I was expecting a little more, I apologize.

It's my fault.

SPEAKER_14

Yeah, so these are the five different areas of the West Seattle Junction residential urban village.

Amendments 1-2 through 1-6, just kind of moving through the urban village.

SPEAKER_08

And in each instance, it's a reduction from a low rise zone to a residential small lot zone.

SPEAKER_14

Correct.

So, well, yes, that's correct.

So they're currently zoned single family.

And so there's kind of a variety of proposals of LR2, LR1, but the request is for the amendment proposes to that they would only go to RSL.

SPEAKER_08

But it's still going to be denser than it is today, right, Council Member?

SPEAKER_16

That's right.

So this community has expressed very strong support for additional zoning changes in order to accommodate transit-oriented development in the junction once an alignment and station is selected.

You should have received a letter in your inbox late last night.

The chair of the Juneau Neighborhood Association was working hard to to get this test.

She's a new mom, but this is really important to her.

I just want to highlight one section of this letter where she says, Council Member Herbold's amendments would allow our community and the OPCD to update the neighborhood plan in a way that incorporates the light rail route and station placement.

Juno and our community support transit-oriented development and support affordable housing, offices, green space, and new housing options close to rail stations.

We see affordable housing built near the new light rail stations as essential to make light rail more accessible.

Couple that commitment from that neighborhood with the commitment that we've received from the office of planning and community development.

During the 2018 budget process, this council issued a statement of legislative intent requesting that the office of planning and community development report on how the city will prioritize areas for community planning, including areas where we intend to begin planning in 2018 and 2019. They issued a report in July of 2018 addressing the portion of their work program that is dedicated to neighborhood-specific planning and community development.

In that report, they identify future light rail stations focus areas outside of the center city.

Background work now in detailed planning after 2019. Avalon West Seattle Junction is named as a planning priority for OPCD and they go on to say, Throughout 2018 and 2019, we will be evaluating the timing and need for station area planning near new light rail stations that are planned to be open along the West Seattle to Ballard light rail alignments.

Other, I think, important items around this is I think most folks are aware that the specific alignment and necessary property acquisitions have not yet been decided.

The elected leaders group for Sound Transit 3 will be making recommendations.

in May and Sound Transit 3, the board or the Sound Transit Board will be identifying a desired alignment or a couple options for desired alignment.

As I mentioned, the community has expressed strong support for additional zoning changes in order to accommodate transit and has made commitments to engage in that.

Upzoning properties that are likely needed to be acquired for light rail may also have the effect of increasing the costs of Sound Transit 3, costs that we are engaged in identifying third-party funding, maybe fourth-party or fifth-party funding, in order to address.

So the other, I think, important point that has been made is that particularly in in the West Seattle Junction when community members made an effort to Fulfill the the request that in making adjustments to the MHA up zones that if they were proposing a smaller up zone that they identify a location for a larger up zone and In their attempts to do so, they identified a location where they thought making up for the affordable housing, a location where that would be a good thing to do and a good place to do it.

Unfortunately, the FEIS constrained our ability to implement that recommendation to have a higher increased density in the allotted area that they identified.

And so that's just as it relates to one particular parcel, but as it relates generally to the West Seattle Junction, the FEIS constrained the options available to us as it relates to other pieces of property as well.

They basically didn't give us any wiggle room to do that exercise.

And I think the neighborhood planning efforts that OPCD will be engaging in can actually result in additional affordable housing above and beyond what's before us today.

As I've argued before and as some other council members have made the point, I really believe that this is the first expanded use of the RSL zone and if this effort to convert single family within urban villages to residential small lot is successful, it will help us have those conversations in areas outside of urban villages.

If we are sending the message to our community that we won't consider compromise on these issues, I think it's going to make those conversations a lot more difficult.

SPEAKER_08

I want to signal support for this suite of amendments, Council Member Herbold, for a couple of reasons that you mentioned, just to reemphasize.

The implementation of MHA in neighborhoods around our light rail stations is, I think, critical.

However, at the same time, I recognize the limitations that have been put on us as a body due to the environmental impact statements and what was studied.

In my own very neighborhood, we just spent some discussion talking about the Roosevelt neighborhood.

And there are many in the Roosevelt neighborhood that believe at this point we should be building much taller than the 85 feet that is allotted through the MHA proposal.

I believe that because of the impending decision of the Sound Transit 3 alignment, as well as the commitment from the planning department, it would be imprudent for us to not implement MHA in this neighborhood, which is not what you're proposing.

But instead, it is prudent for us to implement MHA in the neighborhood while we await those outcomes, both the ST3 alignment outcome and the neighborhood planning outcome and then use those as springboards for additional changes to be proposed in the neighborhood.

I don't believe that because of this implementation of these proposals that we will see in the near term much loss of units, but instead because those two confluence of factors between the alignment decisions and the planning process that the West Seattle Junction will be back in front of the council in the very near future with proposed zoning changes that are different and higher than what is being proposed.

So I see this as a necessary step to make sure that we implement MHA and we don't lose out on the existing development capacity and look forward to seeing the neighborhood's proposal as we go through the planning process after the ST3 alignment has been selected or at least chosen or at least studied.

One of those things.

I saw next Councilmember Juarez and then I think Councilmember Gonzalez.

SPEAKER_21

I have a question for Councilmember Herbold and then a comment.

Councilmember Herbold, your amendments from 1-2 to 1-6, there's five of them, all regarding the West Seattle Junction urban village.

Are you saying all five of those are related to future light rail?

SPEAKER_16

They are.

SPEAKER_21

Okay, so is this and we'll just for full disclosure councilmember herbal I had an opportunity to talk this afternoon I appreciate it and she provided me with the letter from Mr. Sam Asafa and some other community groups about what the concerns would be in the density in those neighborhoods and what is so is that that is that the main underlying purpose indeed it is to to reduce the Okay, so that's that's a little bit different for me if you're gonna have these transit rich spines and you're looking at transit oriented development and housing and the density and The follow-up question I have is, and if you don't have the answer, maybe the chairman does, how would that work?

If we were to say, okay, let's agree to reduce all proposed rezones because of light rail, would we ever revisit that area again?

SPEAKER_16

That's the commitment that we're making to do.

That's the commitment that the neighborhood is making to do.

Even if there's three different options, and again, this is conventional wisdom, correct me if I'm wrong, you would think that one would want more density, whatever option they choose, if you kind of know the neighborhood, that's what I've experienced at Northgate, that's what I'm seeing at 130th, so I don't know if that variable changes my opinion, but please enlighten me.

SPEAKER_16

As folks who have been really involved in those kinds of planning discussions, can you add a little bit of texture to the importance of knowing where these alignments are going to be to how that informs the discussions around planning?

SPEAKER_19

Sure, I can try to start and then colleagues jump in.

I would say, I would just note for clarification that all of this, whether the amendment passes or the proposal as introduced is adopted, it is an up zone.

So it is not, all of these areas will be up zone.

It's just the extent to which the up zone is occurring.

Right now I would say generally knowing the alignment typically in looking at sort of station area planning often more density is concentrated in the immediate station area and often tears down from there.

And so depending on the size of the urban village and the walk shed and the topography of an area, might depend on exactly where you concentrate the highest zoning increase versus sort of tiering out.

And so with three separate alignments that are 10 blocks apart, and I'm sort of relying on Council Member Herbold's description here, in this specific case may impact where decisions are made in terms of where concentrating the highest increases versus sort of tiering down from there.

SPEAKER_08

I think that that's very well said, Ms. Panucci.

Your experience as a planner is showing through with the true colors.

And I would echo that by suggesting that, for example, in my own neighborhood, Councilmember Juarez, the original proposal by Sound Transit, even after a preferred alignment was chosen, was to put the light rail station immediately under the freeway.

And as a result of a lot of neighborhood involvement, that light rail station was moved several blocks to the east to be closer to the heart of the Roosevelt neighborhood.

As a result of that final decision about alignments, the community then underwent a series of community-based plans, which now we're in the third iteration of.

which are continuing to grow the density and options available to us in the neighborhood.

So I see this as an iterative process with the first step here today being implementation of MHA in these neighborhoods.

Step two being the eventual selection of the light rail alignments by the Sound Transit Board.

And step three being the planning department using that selection of the light rail alignment to inform community-based plans that will implement further zoning changes in this neighborhood and that those steps two and three will likely be sequenced very shortly after this vote.

So if we were taking this vote in 2018 it might be a couple years away but I think my expectation is that the planning department will be back to us likely by the end of next year or early 2021 with a set of zoning proposals which is why I think in the near term, implementing MHA in this neighborhood makes sense, while then waiting for community planning to take place and additional zoning capacity will result from that community planning once we actually know where the stations are.

But if you're designing a walkshed of 10 minutes, as you can imagine, the terminus really matters a lot, especially as does the topography.

I don't know West Seattle, certainly as well as the rest of my colleagues, But the difference, as I understand it, in elevation between the 41st option and the 44th option is pretty significant.

And so that walk shed will change based on where that terminus ends up getting located.

This, to me, seems like if the cart was before the horse differently, where we had already selected a preferred alternative, we'd likely be talking about a different set of proposals.

So I think this preserves the opportunity for the neighborhood and Sound Transit with OPCD to come up with some proposals that make sense once a preferred alignment is selected.

But I'll get off my soapbox.

SPEAKER_16

Just because I'm actually counting the blocks, it's actually not 10 blocks, it's about 7 blocks from the variation of changes from 36th over to 44th.

SPEAKER_08

So I have Council Member Gonzalez next and then Council Member Mosqueda.

SPEAKER_15

So I am in an awkward position here because this policy conversation about land use zoning changes.

in this venue are being tied very closely to policy decisions that are related to the elected leadership group regarding the sound transit alignment to the West Seattle Junction residential urban village where I live.

If one of the three alternatives as proposed by the stakeholder advisory group pass, it means I have a financial, direct financial conflict of interest in policy decisions related to the West Seattle Junction Residential Urban Village.

And so I am, I had originally taken the mic with the intent of advocating for one position over the other and given my, inability to have checked in with Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission, I am unfortunately going to have to refrain from engaging in this conversation until I have an opportunity to get clearance from our ethics and compliance officer as to whether or not I can engage in this policy conversation since Councilmember Herbold has tied it very closely with policy determinations that are afoot in the elected leadership group.

for Sound Transit, which I sit on and I'm conflicted out of.

So I will be abstaining.

SPEAKER_08

Thank you for that clarification.

Council Member Musqueda, and then I believe Council President Harrell.

SPEAKER_32

Mine's just a question and then maybe comments after the Council President, but does that apply to anybody else on council, that position that Council Member Gonzalez is in?

SPEAKER_09

So if you own property in an area that's proposed to be rezoned under one of these amendments, you should recuse yourself from voting on that amendment.

Generally, the proposals affect such a broad swath of the city's population that if you own land in an area that is proposed to be changed under this proposal, but there isn't a specific amendment related to it and you haven't influenced proposal related to that particular site, then you should be fine.

SPEAKER_32

Good news, I don't own any property.

SPEAKER_08

Council President.

No, I did not.

Sorry, I thought you were grabbing a microphone.

Council Member Muscata, do you have additional thoughts you'd like to share?

SPEAKER_32

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

So, I think there's two things that I'd like to say off the bat regarding these amendments.

Number one, I understand the complexity of the I think it's important that we have a discussion about the pending sound transit.

My argument would be it's precisely because we have a new line, a new stop for sound transit that will be coming to this area, that we should do everything we can right now to raise the bar and create as much affordable housing as possible so that when sound It would be in addition to that baseline.

If we can see ourselves voting for the amount that would be permissible under the EIS, then anything in addition to that that would be added on, no matter the location that it comes, would be a benefit to the area in terms of creating additional housing, affordable housing, and opportunities for folks to live there.

That's number one.

Number two is, regardless of Sound Transit coming, people love West Seattle.

I love West Seattle.

I've lived there twice in my adulthood.

I'm sorry, D5, I'm sorry.

But I've lived there twice.

I would love to move back there.

Regardless of whether or not sound transit if we can expedite it yay, but if it that doesn't happen I know folks want to live there tomorrow yesterday so my desire to Try to make sure that we stay true to the original intent as it was transmitted and discussed in committee and community is to ensure that the West Seattle Junction and our Asset-rich area there is made available to more renters to more first-time home buyers to make sure that people can have access to housing opportunities there even as the conversation around Sound Transit evolves, so I'll Say that and indicate that I will be not supporting these amendments

SPEAKER_08

Further questions, thoughts, suggestions, colleagues?

SPEAKER_16

Just that this is the second time that you've said that you wanted to live in the Junction.

SPEAKER_08

I do.

This is awesome.

That friendly debate aside, I would then call for support of Amendment 1.3 for many of the reasons I outlined.

So I'll ask for adoption of Amendment 1-2.

So we've got an officially moved and seconded.

Further discussions about this?

So I'll call for a vote on this.

All those in favor, please signify by saying aye and raising your hand.

Aye.

Opposed?

SPEAKER_31

No.

SPEAKER_08

Abstentions?

That amendment is adopted.

I will now call for approval of Amendment 1-3.

Second.

Further discussions on Amendment 1-3?

All those in favor, please say aye and raise your hand.

SPEAKER_25

Aye.

SPEAKER_08

Opposed?

No.

Abstentions?

That amendment is adopted.

Amendment 1-4.

I'll move approval of Amendment 1-4.

Further discussion?

All those in favor please say aye and raise your hand.

SPEAKER_11

Let's move on to Amendment 110, Ms. Ho.

SPEAKER_14

Yes, so Amendment 110 is in the Westwood Highland Park, Urban Village, and I believe 111 is as well.

So 110 is to reduce the description is, oh, it's the area bounded by Southwest Barton, Barton Place, Southwest, and 21st Avenue South.

The proposal is to reduce the proposed zone designation in the area from low-rise multifamily to residential small lot.

It's currently zoned single family, and the council bill would up-zone this to LR1, the M1.

Amendment would be to RSLM.

Council Member Herbold.

SPEAKER_16

Thank you.

The folks in the Southwest Delridge neighborhood, specifically the South Delridge Community Council, has requested Amendment 110. This is an area that is along the Delridge Corridor going south.

It provides a very wonderful view of Mount Rainier.

It's a public view that folks in a low-income neighborhood, in an area that doesn't see a lot of city investment can enjoy, and they're requesting a more gentle up zone in that area in order to preserve that public view of our lovely Mount Rainier.

SPEAKER_08

Further thoughts or discussions or questions on this, colleagues?

Councilmember Mosqueda.

SPEAKER_32

All right.

Why stop now?

So council members, I'm encouraging a no vote again on this.

Not because I don't want more folks to have access to parks and views.

I think that there is really an opportunity here to create additional housing around this commercial center.

grocery stores, post offices, mini restaurants, other small businesses.

Delridge, as you all know, is planned to have a rapid-ride bus in the next couple of years, which eventually is going to connect to the Delridge light rail stop.

I do think that this makes a lot of sense for us to build as much affordable housing, as much housing in general, along this corridor.

It just makes sense.

SPEAKER_08

I will, I'll be supporting this amendment.

Again, the height differences between low-rise one and RSL are minimal.

It's, I believe, none.

And what we're talking about here is the number of units that can be built, i.e., the floor area ratio associated with it.

It's a small swath in the larger scheme of things.

I'll be supporting this amendment because I don't think it's going to make a huge impact, and it has been asked for by members of the community.

Excuse me, please.

SPEAKER_15

Is that is that true?

Council central staff there's there's no there's no difference knows height difference between LR one and residential small lot and there's zero Impact as a result of this amendment in terms of forecasted potential production of affordable housing units For this amendment and also I believe amendment 111 the net impact is negative three units and

SPEAKER_28

In terms of height, the maximum height allowed in a residential small lot zone is proposed to be 30 feet, and that's also true for the low-rise one.

SPEAKER_22

So, quick question.

SPEAKER_28

Please, Council Member Baxiong.

SPEAKER_22

So, Council Member Herbold, is the main difference here then on setbacks if the height is not going to be impacted?

So, at setbacks, that's why you believe that the view corridor will be retained?

SPEAKER_16

That's the argument that's been made to me.

SPEAKER_08

Ms. Panucci.

SPEAKER_19

There's also a difference in how much the floor area limit between RSL zones and low-rise zones.

So the bulk of the building is also, you can make a sort of fatter 30-foot building in low-rise zones than you can in an RSL zone, for lack of a better term.

SPEAKER_15

So how are we fulfilling the Dell Ridge Community Council's stated intent to preserve their view of Mount Rainier?

SPEAKER_19

So the RSL zone would, with a similar height limit, but you could not build as much on the lot.

So there'd be the corridor sort of in between buildings and the yard requirements would be greater in the RSL zone than in the low rise zone.

SPEAKER_15

So there will still be blockage.

under this proposal of Mal Rainier?

SPEAKER_16

We haven't done a visualization at all.

I'm just asking Ms.

SPEAKER_15

Panucci a question.

I'm just saying I don't know for a fact that there will be blockage.

I was just asking that question because one of your primary arguments was to allow for ongoing enjoyment of the view of Mal Rainier and so I want to get a sense given the height is going to be the same, I'm not seeing that as a persuasive argument under either proposal.

SPEAKER_19

So the height limits are similar in, frankly, in single-family, in RSL, and low-rise one zones.

The difference is in yard requirements, so setbacks, and how much space is between buildings, and the total massing of the structures allowed on the site.

So you can fill up more of the lot in a low-rise one zone than you can in the RSL zone.

So in terms of blocking views, again, it would really depend on exactly where you are standing in relationship where the new building is placed on the lot and those sorts of things.

But in an RSL zone, you can't build out as much of the lot as you can in low-rise zones.

SPEAKER_00

Sorry, I just don't understand.

Are you saying that there's no height difference, but in the larger up zone, there'll be more units?

or units will be more densely packed and then some will have the view and some won't, is that right?

SPEAKER_19

Right, if you think about a set of blocks that are developed sort of lot line to lot line with structures along the entire block, which could potentially be achieved in some of the low-rise zones.

In RSL zones, there are yard requirements as well as a lower FAR unit.

So the size of the building in relationship to the size of the lot in RSL zones is smaller.

So if you're looking at the examples on the screen of the bottom images, you can see sort of potential development types we expect to see in RSL zones.

If we flip to the next slide, In low-rise one, you can see that the buildings are filling up more of the lot.

That's the point I was trying to make.

So depending on where you are standing and exactly how tall your building is may depend on how much either development does or does not increase the blockage of the view.

SPEAKER_08

And I think to your earlier point, in all three instances, whether it's currently zoned as single family, whether it's to be zoned as residential small lot, or whether it's to be zoned as low rise one, they all have the same height.

The question is about those setbacks and the development standards associated with it, and therefore how bulky the building is in that neighborhood.

So, but yes, does that satisfy your original questions, Council Member Gonzalez, before we move on to Council Member Mosqueda?

SPEAKER_15

Um, it it does.

Um, yeah, okay.

SPEAKER_08

Council member.

SPEAKER_32

Um, mr. Chair, thank you for saying that I think that what's important to note though Is that what we have done in this package is we've created additional setbacks.

We've created additional requirements for trees We've created additional opportunities for there to be child care facilities on the first floors and um small small businesses so it's not a lot to lot development that I think folks might think about or fear, what we're really talking about is these examples that are on the screen versus the ability to have one or two or potentially, I guess, three.

Buildings on a lot that could otherwise hold five six eight Units family units, so it's really about how many people again to the point that was made earlier How many people were allowing to live in these asset-rich neighborhoods?

you know I was holding this back because I know councilmember Herbold we unfortunately started with your district last time and I This is not about District 1 by any means.

This is a comment across the board.

But we've talked a lot today about how we're still, quote, upzoning when we go from low-rise 1 to RSL and how this is somehow being used as an example of, ways to be more culturally sensitive.

The term earlier was used that there's a lot of cultural change that's happening, that we have to think about the historical, we have to have historical reminders of what we're trying to do.

I will offer this to the council, a historical reminder of what we're actually trying to do today, and that is to right historic wrongs.

What we have in this sheet here is an example of where we have actually down-zoned over the centuries.

I mean, over the decades.

1923 to 1977 to 1992 to 2014, Mr. Chair, we have expanded the opportunity for more people to live in single-family areas.

So as we think about cultural changes, what we're actually doing is trying to build back into the fabric of what Seattle used to look like, build back in the opportunity for people to live in areas that they were excluded from living from.

And this is not an opportunity for us to have historical amnesia about what our city used to look like.

Again, I live in Queen Anne in an apartment that is four stories tall, a beautiful brick apartment building that is currently considered illegal if it were built today because it is now in a single family zone.

And you can see that right there on the map.

In 1923, I was in a multifamily zone.

As the years changed, I now became in a single family zone.

So what we're trying to do is build back into the very fabric of our city the ability to live in more dense areas.

I don't think that this is a huge cultural shift.

In fact, I think it's important for us to have a cultural reminder that this is how we used to be able to have a more inclusive city.

I offer that as a comment across the board, Mr. Chair, not specific to this amendment, but obviously I'm still concerned with this amendment.

SPEAKER_08

Understood.

Further thoughts or questions?

Council Member Herbold.

SPEAKER_16

Thank you.

I would love to see what this map would look like if we included another square and identified all the single-family neighborhoods that we are now proposing to make RSL.

I think that would be a really good illustration of the change that we're making in order to address the exceptions and the exclusion that you identify, Council Member Mosqueda.

I just also want to come back to this particular request.

This is a request of a low-income neighborhood, high displacement risk, and low access to opportunity.

The two amendments combined have a potential impact on the development of three housing units, and these two amendments are important to this community.

SPEAKER_22

I'd like to make a motion for pizza.

SPEAKER_08

Amendment 111. Amendment 111 is also in the Westwood Highland Park urban village.

SPEAKER_14

And this is along 26th Avenue Southwest between Southwest Barton and Southwest Waxbury Street.

The current zoning is various single family and will, the council bill proposes to up zone this to LR1M1 and the amendment is for this to be RSLM.

Council Member Herbold.

SPEAKER_16

Thank you.

26th Avenue Southwest is one of the most used roads for buses in the entire city.

The C-Line and the 120 travel so frequently there.

And the buses are so heavy that it literally creates a mini earthquake every time a bus drives down the road.

This was actually, SDOT actually studied this with community members with vibration equipment.

And the position of the folks down who live along 26th Avenue feel really strongly that before we include additional development along this corridor, the city and Metro need to provide much better infrastructure along the road.

Basically, the road is disintegrating.

It's not just a matter of repaving it.

It actually needs to be rebuilt.

SPEAKER_15

When will that occur?

SPEAKER_16

That is a good question.

We are within the context of the Transportation Committee having discussions about the move levy reset and one of the positions I've taken is that we have failed segments of roads and that I feel really strongly that we should be prioritizing the rebuilding of our failed segments on the arterials.

And that is part of the discussion that we're having as it relates to the move levy reset.

SPEAKER_15

And I assume that you believe you'll be successful in your advocacy for reconstruction of this failed segment, as you described it.

SPEAKER_16

Well, that really depends on the folks who are up here.

I would like to think that I will be successful.

I can't look into the crystal ball.

I want to be fair, because there's, again, a lot of complexity.

here because there are competing needs with District 1, with other districts that also have road paving needs that are on a long backlog.

SPEAKER_15

So I will be looking to have those trade-offs and discussions with council members.

I suppose i'm asking you that line of inquiry, um council member herbal because if the assumption is is that um, you will be um vigorously advocating for this infrastructure investment, um, then I i'm not as um persuaded by an argument that we should not pursue additional density based on the existing infrastructure because the existing condition of the infrastructure will hopefully change and in fact I think it emboldens and supports your position to have those infrastructure investments in this particular area of your district if we are expecting and anticipating additional density.

I think that actually bolsters your argument as opposed to going with a low-rise, one multifamily to just RSL?

SPEAKER_16

And I'm not going to make an argument that I don't feel like I can commit to.

We are behind in making investments on the move levy.

We have fallen behind, and that's why we're having these reset conversations.

And I really don't know what's going to come out of them.

SPEAKER_08

Councilmember Baxill.

SPEAKER_22

Maybe this is just piling on what Councilmember Gonzalez asked, but would your argument not be stronger to the Department of Transportation and to Metro to say we're rezoning this for a denser community for one that will do the kinds of things that Councilmember Mosqueda was talking about with child care on-site to have that available and then say Metro and SDOT, we need you to put that into a higher priority queue than if we don't indicate that it's important to us.

Perhaps.

SPEAKER_08

Colleagues, other thoughts or questions?

Anybody on the side of the dais?

I'm not seeing any microphones.

So I'm not seeing any further discussion on this.

And so I would move adoption of Amendment 111. Further discussion, colleagues?

All those in favor, please signify by saying aye and raising your hand.

SPEAKER_25

Aye.

SPEAKER_08

Opposed?

The noes have it on a 5-3 vote.

The amendment fails.

We have two amendments left, I believe.

We have one in District 2 and then a District 5 amendment.

District 2.

SPEAKER_09

All right.

Map 2-4 is an area on the west side of Martin Luther King Jr.

Way.

South of South Winthrop Street and the Mount Baker Light Rail Station.

This is an area that the City has targeted for a future park.

There is some park funding available for acquisition of Parkland at the north end of this area the legislation would rezone it from low-rise three to a Seattle mix 95 zone this amendment would Instead rezone it to neighborhood commercial three with a 55 foot height limit council president Just sort of quickly This back in 2015-2016 a lot of neighborhood planning went into the vision of a park around this area and

SPEAKER_03

And there's no housing there now and the city was successful and urged by the community to get funding for this.

It was known as the King County Conservation Futures 2016 application.

that they got successful to create this park.

So the community had come together to sort of have this vision of what's called the Mount Baker Town Center.

And you've heard a lot about this in the past.

And so, you know, there are some small businesses, some neighborhood groups around where, I don't know if you know Cafe Ibex.

some small stores around there.

So the community comprised of members of the immigrant refugee communities, students at Franklin High School, residents, et cetera, have really been advocating for years for this park.

And so what this effectively does is sort of keep the park in play.

The cost of the park would still be around close to about a million dollars, maybe a million plus.

But again, we're only talking about six lots, and I think this is a modest, dent into our overall scheme of achieving affordability, but certainly one that will make sense in terms of our need for open space and parks in this area that of course is rapidly growing.

So I hope I'd ask for your support.

SPEAKER_08

Other thoughts or questions, colleagues?

SPEAKER_21

Council Member Juarez.

Very briefly, I'll be supporting Council Member President Harrell.

We've been working on this when Council President Harrell was in parks.

We worked on this park issue for a couple years and retained the money, so I'll be supporting this amendment.

SPEAKER_15

for the thoughts colleagues council member gonzalez thank you um i had an opportunity to sit with some of the the mount baker community members uh during my um in district uh office hours in district two i feel like it was an attorney ago but i think it might have been last week and um had an opportunity to sort of get a better view of the entire um space and i think that this particular uh parcel of land is unique relative to other conversations that we've been having here because this work has been ongoing for a number of years through the parks committee in terms of what I think the city has done, which is make a commitment to this particular part of district two that they can expect cooperation and partnership in establishing a park in this space.

There's a couple of other affordable housing Projects, I believe that are happening in the in the area that are going to be in desperate need of open space in this particular Neighborhood, and I also understand that it's in very close proximity to Franklin high school And there's a lot of students who could benefit from this open space in this particular part of town and And if that wasn't enough, I know that there's a preschool that we fund through the Seattle Preschool Program that is right across the street from this as well that is advocating to us and is very invested in identifying this open space that we have the kiddos who are participating in our Seattle Preschool Program able to access this open space in Mount Baker.

This particular parcel of land, in my view, has been encumbered in some ways by prior promises by the city and it makes sense for us to continue to fulfill the commitment to provide open space to this neighborhood in a part of District 2 that desperately needs open space and that has a lot of really wide streets that are quite dangerous to cross.

So I'm gonna support Council President Harrell's amendment for those reasons.

SPEAKER_08

Other thoughts, colleagues?

Council Member Esqueda.

SPEAKER_32

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks to Council President Harrell for your leadership on this.

I think as we create greater density throughout the city, it is important to think about how we're creating more opportunities to green spaces.

These green spaces are, in effect, the backyards, the play areas for our families and communities.

I guess I have to admit, though, I'm a little confused about the approach that we're taking to get there for this one.

Why not just do a amendment that would make this a park versus down zone it to commercial 55 feet Park is not a zoning designation.

SPEAKER_09

So all parks have zoning underneath them So Park is basically defined by ownership by the Parks Department and use of the park rather than the zoning

SPEAKER_32

But in effect, we're suppressing the value of the land in an effort to not incentivize development.

Is that how this tool is being used in this case?

SPEAKER_09

The effect of the amendment would be to have a lower land value likely than under the executive's proposal.

SPEAKER_32

Okay.

Mr. President and Mr. Chair, I want to support this because I know that this has been a long time in the making.

And again, I think it's important that we have greater green spaces as we create density.

Initially, I was super supportive of this effort because I actually thought we were trying to reduce the height limit in an effort to make development more affordable.

and for the opportunity for community to get in on that affordable development to create things like the Rainier Beach Food Innovation District, which we know has been a huge priority in that area and you've all helped to champion, but has hit some stumbling blocks.

So the question that I had raised previously was, was it our intent to only have this apply to commercial versus mixed use as it was previously designated?

I would love to have figured out if there was a way to do a hybrid of mixed-use Affordable commercials that we could do more food innovation districts next to parks.

I remain concerned about sort of the vehicle in which we're Devaluing in essence the land to create the park I do support the creation of the park and will be deferential to the fact that you've been working for a very long time To create this and I'll support it.

SPEAKER_08

Thank you So at this point, I'd like to move adoption of amendment 2-4 I think that was seconded twice.

Any further discussion on this one, colleagues?

All those in favor, please say aye and raise your hand.

Aye.

Any opposed?

I'm going to call that unanimous adoption.

That concludes the published agenda amendments.

I believe we have one unpublished agenda amendment, at least one.

SPEAKER_28

I think, sorry, returning to B6, I believe, right?

Or am I out of sequence here?

5-4, I believe.

SPEAKER_19

So the the amendments that were removed from the consent package have already been considered by the committee So it is just the I think we have one amendment that was not included in the published agenda Attention, which is amendment a 19. I believe the clerk has copies to distribute to the council.

SPEAKER_15

Thank you warped back into budget

SPEAKER_08

So Council Member Juarez, would you like to have central staff describe this amendment or would you like to?

SPEAKER_21

I will do it since I've been sitting here for 18 hours.

That's an exaggeration.

Council Chairman, I'd like to move Amendment A-19.

This is, I believe you all have a copy of this.

It's been just distributed.

I want to thank Ketel for his work on this as well as the North Haven folks.

North Haven is a senior living community in the Northgate neighborhood that is subdividing their property and building additional space, and more specifically, developing a center for adult day services on the first floor.

North Haven would like to offer medical and dental services for low-income seniors in the new space.

However, they are currently restricted by limiting the space for these services to 4,000 square feet when their current plans to serve seniors calls for 9,000 square feet.

This amendment allows them to subdivide their property as proposed and allows up to 10,000 square feet for medical and dental services.

North Haven is located at Northgate.

It's in the Northgate Urban Center.

So a vote in support to allow North Haven to provide medical and dental services to low-income elders in our community.

I'm hoping that I have your support here today.

And I think if there's anything else, Ketel, did I miss anything?

SPEAKER_28

Now, just one thing to mention here is that this is, in some ways, a companion piece to a MAP amendment that you have already approved.

That was Amendment 5-3A, which also pertains to the North Haven site.

Both of them could operate independently, but I think as part of North Haven's development plans, they're viewing them as sort of a combined thing.

SPEAKER_21

And I believe this would be the first of its kind in the district, medical and dental, for low-income seniors.

SPEAKER_08

Yes.

Colleagues, questions about Amendment A-19 related to the North Haven split zoning site?

SPEAKER_25

Did she move that?

SPEAKER_08

She did move it.

It was not seconded.

I'm seconding it.

Okay, it has now been properly seconded.

Council Member Mosqueda, you've grabbed your microphone.

SPEAKER_31

No, I just love it.

I get to say something positive at the end.

Yay!

Thank you.

You're welcome.

SPEAKER_08

That was all.

Great.

Any further discussion?

SPEAKER_03

We have a lot of no votes down there.

Let's talk about this a little bit here.

SPEAKER_08

Amendment A19 has been properly moved and seconded.

I'm not seeing any further discussion on this.

So all those in favor, please say yes and raise your hand.

SPEAKER_25

Say yes.

SPEAKER_08

Any opposed?

Okay, that amendment, A19, is adopted.

Colleagues, does anyone else have any amendments that are late-breaking that were not published on the agenda that they'd like to bring forward at this time?

Seeing none, this concludes the amendments proposed for the first of our three bills that we need to take action on today.

However, it does represent the majority, overwhelming majority of our conversation, so I would like to, from a procedural perspective, move that the committee recommend passage of Council Bill 119444 as amended and that the recommendation be sent to the March 18th Seattle City Council meeting.

I was properly moved and seconded.

Any further discussion on this colleagues?

I want to just say in wrapping up how grateful I am to you for your attention to detail.

It has been a very long process, and we are so close to the finish line.

We still have two bills left to go, but this citywide MHA bill represents the lion's share of our work.

And next, we'll be talking about the comprehensive plan and a Northgate TOD bill.

But this bill has been literally years in the making.

So I'm very grateful to you all for your attention to detail.

SPEAKER_15

Thank you.

SPEAKER_08

Any further thoughts that folks might want to add?

No, just.

Madam Clerk, we don't call a roll on this because it's a select committee.

So yes, Council Member.

SPEAKER_22

I just want to say you've done a great job captaining the ships and also Sarah McSanna is down there.

Many people that have been here at all 40 meetings.

So I want to acknowledge and say thank you.

SPEAKER_08

Thank you Mr. Chair.

SPEAKER_32

I just want to say thank you again.

Earlier today you chaired us through a press conference on this issue and we had the pleasure to stand with community members who've been calling for us to take action on an inclusionary zoning program here in Seattle, much like many other cities have already done.

I think that it has been a hero's work to get to this point, Mr. Chair, and I want to thank you and the staff for all of your hours and community making this vote today possible.

Again, I think it's important for us to remember how it has seemed somewhat painful to get over this hurdle at points, Again, we're really only talking about 6% of the land across the city.

So as we consider this bill and the two other bills, I urge my colleagues to truly see this as just the beginning of the conversation that we need to engage into again.

correct the historic wrongs that we've talked about over the past decades so that we can truly create a more inclusive Seattle.

I continue to be concerned that some of the amendments were included in the package and that we are going to fall below our goal of reaching 6,300 affordable units in our city.

And what's maybe more important is that there's potential families and individuals and workers and seniors that might not be able to get that housing But overall, if we continue to work on creating affordable housing and greater inclusionary zoning programs and look truly citywide, perhaps this was just the first step and we can realize not just those affordable homes, but affordable housing throughout the city in every neighborhood on every single one of our streets so that our neighborhoods are truly accessible.

affordable and equitable.

So I'll be voting yes enthusiastically because this is a critical first step and thank you again for your stewardship throughout the process.

SPEAKER_08

Any final remarks from other folks?

Okay so all those in favor of the committee recommending passage of Council Bill 119444 as amended and forwarding it to the City Council for March 18th, please vote aye and raise your hand.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions?

That is adopted unanimously.

We will move on now to item number two.

Madam Chair, this is the comp plan bill.

Let's please read the abbreviated title into the record.

Madam Clerk.

SPEAKER_18

Council bill one one nine four four three relating to land use amending the seattle comprehensive plan to incorporate changes related to mandatory housing affordability As proposed as part of the 2019 comprehensive plan annual amendment process for discussion and possible vote Miss panucci, we look to your able council.

SPEAKER_19

I will turn it over to lish But I will just note that there are only a couple of amendment votes potentially for you all to consider.

So we are nearing the the end Mr. Witson

SPEAKER_09

So first you have a consent package that incorporates four amendments.

The first is amendment D1 related to the Fremont neighborhood plan.

This would delete a policy in the Fremont neighborhood plan that would affect that affects an area within the Wallingford Urban Village.

There are existing policies in the Wallingford Neighborhood Plan that basically say the same thing.

D2 is an amendment to the Morgan Junction Neighborhood Plan.

It amends the policies there to better reflect the community's desire for targeted urban planning when there is 25% of the urban village that would be affected by zoning changes.

Amendment D3 would amend the comprehensive plan consistent with an amendment you made to the Northgate Urban Center boundary under one of the previous amendments, 511. And Amendment D4 would amend the boundary of the North Rainier Hub Urban Village consistent with Amendment 2.1 that you acted on previously.

And I should mention that the changes to the urban villages will also require some changes to other maps that will bring forward both in amendments to the Council bill one one nine four four four and this bill at full council or prior to the council's vote to update citywide maps.

There were 16 possible options that you would have had and so rather than bringing 16 versions of those maps to you, we'll have them for you for a vote at full council.

SPEAKER_08

Colleagues, would any member like to pull any of these items from the consent package related to the comprehensive plan?

Councilmember Miscada.

SPEAKER_32

Mr. Chair, I would like to remove D2, the Morgan Junction neighborhood plan policies for further discussion.

SPEAKER_08

Okay.

Any other issues that folks would like to pull?

Seeing none, I'd move adoption of the consent package with the exception of D2 be adopted.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor of the consent package absent D2, please raise your hand and say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Consent package is adopted.

Let's start then with D2, Mr. Whitson, before we move on to the other individual vote amendments.

SPEAKER_09

All right.

And the language for D2 is on page...

5 of 20. 185 And 186 probably 186 is the more relevant Zoom in just a little bit, so it's clear great So there are two policies that are being amended the first one is a policy that encourages a mix of housing stock within the urban village to promote generational wealth creation through the retention or creation of affordable entry-level family-sized housing units that provide homeownership opportunities in the historically single-family housing areas of the urban village.

And the second one is a new policy that asks the city to use community engagement and neighborhood planning tools to identify solutions for land use and housing affordability issues when more than 25% of the urban village could be affected by proposed zoning changes.

SPEAKER_08

Council Member Herbold.

SPEAKER_16

Thank you.

So the policy MJP14 is a policy that has been brought forward.

Again, the Morgan Junction has been in conversations with Homestead Community Land Trust to talk about how to preserve entry-level family-sized housing units.

Again, that does not mean single-family homes necessarily, but using the earlier policy that we included where some MHA dollars would go towards the promotion of affordable housing home ownership opportunities, those two efforts are supposed to work in conjunction.

The second amendment is MJP23.1.

And again, as we heard from public comment today, this doesn't require the city to do anything.

It just affirmatively states the intent to use community engagement and neighborhood planning tools to identify potential solutions for land use and housing affordability issues that arise when more than 25 percent of the urban village could be affected by proposed zoning changes.

It requires that we take a look at what those impacts are, if there are indeed impacts.

It doesn't assume that there will be negative impacts on affordable housing, but is a trigger to have us take a look at that.

One of the points that has been highlighted to me is that the comp plan itself identifies the fact that as it relates specifically to comp plan policies, one-size-fits-all approach embedded within the comp plan.

In the introduction, it states that neighborhood plans have found common themes for improvement among different communities, but it has also highlighted needs that were unique to each of these neighborhoods.

It further goes on to say that community planning continues to evolve as the needs of communities, the city, and the region change over time.

For example, race and social justice has become an important part of planning.

Moving forward, community planning will be integrated in equitable approach to identify and implement a community's vision for how their neighborhood will grow.

Plans will affect the history, character, and vision of the community, but also remain consistent with the overall citywide vision and strategy of the comprehensive plan.

Creating and implementing community plans can help residents apply this comprehensive plan at a local level and can provide more specific guidance than citywide policies do for areas where growth and change are occurring and or desired.

SPEAKER_08

That's it.

Council Member Mosqueda.

SPEAKER_32

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks again to the sponsor for the explanation.

So, I have a few questions here.

The Planning Commission's recommendations for the comprehensive plan amendments included recommendation on these amendments which related to the Morgan Junction specifically, and I think they raised some important points.

So, MJP14 emphasized encouraging, quote, owner-occupied family-size housing and historically single-family housing areas of the urban village, is that correct?

SPEAKER_16

The language of the amendment reads, encourage a mix of housing stock to promote generational wealth creation through the retention or creation of affordable entry-level family-sized housing units that provide homeownership opportunities in historically single-family housing areas of the urban village.

But the first few words are encourage a mix of housing stock.

SPEAKER_09

Both of these amendments have been changed and updated since the Planning Commission reviewed them.

SPEAKER_32

Okay.

So there's not going to be a disparate or discretionary impact on renters who...

Will there?

SPEAKER_09

Will there be?

It talks specifically about homeownership opportunities in historically single-family housing areas that will be subject to interpretation over probably decades.

SPEAKER_16

But it is coupled with the zoning decisions that we have made today which undo single family zoning.

So I think that's important to consider how these decisions that we're making today work together.

SPEAKER_32

I guess just to summarize my concern here, it doesn't technically undo the owner occupancy of existing home ownership that may have occurred in these areas.

That's not changing and so what I'm concerned with is You know, we haven't actually taken it to the upper limits of where we could in terms of what was allowed under the EIS today.

And in an effect, we've reduced the number of units or family opportunities for people to have affordable rental units in much of the amendments that were taken today.

emphasizing or encouraging owner-occupied preference, I still have a concern.

I also have a concern that it may impact unintentionally and may have a conflict with some of the upcoming work that we want to do on accessory dwelling units and the policy updates.

And we're trying to make end roads to remove Language or any indication of preference or requirement that those?

Entities be owner-occupied, so I remain concerned about that piece The second concern that I have so Mj 23.1 calls for a neighborhood planning process to be triggered when proposed changes affect more than 25% of of the urban village.

So here's some of my concerns.

Since no other neighborhood plans have this specifically, and since the neighborhood planning is resource intensive, including this language only for the Morgan Junction seems to me to be inconsistent or even inequitable with some of our other neighborhood planning processes.

And I raise that both for feedback from the sponsor and from central staff.

SPEAKER_16

So the language that I read from the comp plan is intended to highlight the fact, and this is speaking to P23.1, the second point that you made, the comp plan itself anticipates some difference of policies across neighborhoods and in different urban villages.

So that is inherent in the concept of a comprehensive plan and inherent in the concept of having different policies for different neighborhoods.

We have different comp plan policies for different neighborhoods throughout the city.

As it relates to the your first comment regarding the tenure, I just want to say again that my amendment to have the proposed upzoning in Morgan did not pass, to have the proposed upzoning in Morgan to be a smaller bump that did not pass.

So this amendment is not about the form or shape of a property, it's about tenure, and it's simply, again, Homestead Community Land Trust, they do land trust homeownership properties in structures other than single family dwellings.

They have covenants on homeownership opportunities within condominium buildings.

Individual units within multi-unit condos are held in a land trust.

Again, this is this is about the tenure.

SPEAKER_08

It's not about the density Councilmember Muscata while I appreciate your concern and attention to detail related to this My instincts here are because this is amending Individual policies within an individual neighborhood within our comprehensive plan and therefore is a set of wording changes that I don't know, maybe the 45 people who are still watching this plus another 15 people actually have read, and of those 60 people, maybe one third of them actually understand the difference.

I would welcome the opportunity to understand better some of your concerns, but my knee-jerk reaction at this point is to do what our council has traditionally done, which is to allow individual neighborhood plan policies to be determined by the processes developed by those individual neighborhoods.

And while I share your concern that there may be a feeling that, by our friends at the Planning Commission who I dearly love and strongly support, that this may set up a precedent that requires additional planning work to be triggered if zoning changes are proposed in more than 25% of that neighborhood, I don't believe that that is the intent of this amendment and I have, I trust the maker of the motions judgment on this, that this is really related to individual wording changes proposed by the neighborhood that she represents.

So I'll be supporting it and look to my other colleagues if they'd like to weigh in at this late hour.

Council Member Gonzalez.

SPEAKER_15

I'm just going to be really quick here.

So I see the first amendment, MJP 1.4 is pretty common sense.

What we're doing is I think what Councilmember Herbold is trying to do is saying that now that we're going to expect different types of housing stock, we expect that some of those will be up for purchase on the market, and this is an opportunity for us to make sure that the department and that the city of Seattle as a whole is focusing on creating ownership opportunities as that new housing stock comes online so that people who are currently renting may be able to transition into these home ownership opportunities by leveraging both the 5% dedication of MHA funds that we just voted on and passed, and also leveraging housing levy dollars that are also available to multifamily home owners.

So that's, I just want to make sure that my understanding of your intent with that particular piece is correct.

It is.

Okay.

On the second one, MJP23.1, quick question.

I note here that it requires this neighborhood planning and engagement or I'm not sure if requiring is the right phrase anymore, but suggesting, I guess, if more than 25% of the urban village could be affected by proposing zoning changes.

Is that threshold of 25%, is that present in other neighborhood planning language in our comprehensive plan?

SPEAKER_16

It is not.

SPEAKER_15

OK, so why are we imposing a threshold of 25% in this instance?

SPEAKER_16

It is creating a benchmark for acknowledging the desire of the community to have a discussion and to take a look at whether or not there are impacts to affordability.

and other land use issues when that threshold is met.

Other communities could also identify thresholds for that conversation.

But again, it's not prescriptive.

It does not require that the city enter into any particular process.

It simply says use community engagement and neighborhood planning tools to identify potential solutions.

SPEAKER_15

Right, I guess I'm just concerned about, I'm still not hearing a rational basis for the establishment of a 25% benchmark.

SPEAKER_16

I think it's just simply that the notion that when a quarter of an urban village is being, it has proposed land use changes, that that is a good time to check in.

It's just simply, it's a quarter of the land space and changes over that much space is a good point to check in.

SPEAKER_15

I guess I'm not, I'm worried about the establishment of a benchmark without understanding what the impacts of that will be in future neighborhood planning context and situations.

And I just, I guess I get a little nervous about setting a benchmark based on, A feeling or a sense that that seems to be the right Place to engage in the conversation and i'm just not convinced that that's um That that's um That that's wise policy in terms of saying we're going to revisit only if there's a 25 potential impact on proposed zoning changes and then i'm not really sure how we even quantify what 25% of affected changes within an urban village would even be.

SPEAKER_08

Mr. Woodson, can you help us out here a little bit?

I mean, my read of this amendment is that it applies mostly just to the Morgan Junction neighborhood because it's an MJP.23 amendment.

Therefore, it's applicable only to the Morgan Junction plan element of the comprehensive plan, but I look to your guidance.

SPEAKER_09

Correct.

Yes.

So this would only apply in the Morgan Junction If there are other proposals beyond the MHA that would affect a significant portion of the urban village, then some sort of community planning and neighborhood planning tools should be used to engage with the Morgan Junction neighborhood.

SPEAKER_15

Well, I feel like our collective blood sugar is getting low, so I'm going to move along.

Where's that guy with the pizza from the other night?

I put in an order for pizza, but it never came.

SPEAKER_08

I don't think if you just say the word pizza, pizza shows up anymore, unfortunately.

That's how my life works.

I don't know how your life works.

Colleagues, I look to others who might want to weigh in here on this Morgan Johnson comprehensive plan amendments.

I'm not seeing anybody moving a microphone forward.

Although council members get it.

There you go.

SPEAKER_32

Okay.

I ate something over here.

So i'm great guys No, i'm just kidding.

I'll be very short.

I think this is precisely the point that council member gonzalez is making I mean This is a comprehensive plan discussion.

I I get that it applies only to this area My concern is still that this seems to be uh allowing a different approach in one area versus the rest of the City so I don't know why we would apply different standards for process noting as well As the good chair mentioned we want to make sure that those community voices come forward But we still have a lot to do to make sure that the voices who are coming forward are equitably Representing the community that is there including renters and the community that will be moving into the neighborhood So I appreciate the explanations.

I'm gonna be Please consider.

SPEAKER_15

Yeah for the record I don't I don't I mean I understand that each neighborhood particularly within our comp plan has sort of a unique set of needs and that is represented in our very extensive, comprehensive plan.

So my sort of query or pause was around this benchmarking that is represented in the language that says when more than 25% of the urban village could be affected by proposed zoning changes.

I was expressing pause as it relates to that benchmark, just because I wasn't quite seeing why that type of a framework was being proposed, but because it's been paired with the MJP 1.4, which I really like, I'm gonna support Council Member Herbold's amendment in this space, but we'll continue to flag that I think we need to monitor this 25%.

Benchmark proposal that's been injected here that I don't think exists anywhere else in the comp plan For the discussion colleagues on amendment d2 so I'd move adoption of amendment d2 second

SPEAKER_08

All right, final call for discussion.

Yes, please, Council Member Muscatin.

SPEAKER_32

I do feel like I need to get clarification on this, though.

Could you please scroll up a little bit here?

Because as Council Member Herbold knows, one of the big issues that I've been constantly championing is the desire to create more affordable first-time home ownership options.

Hopefully, the Condo Act in Olympia goes through so that we can actually create affordable flats and convert some of our apartments into first-time home ownership options.

But I want to make sure I'm not misunderstanding the first part of this.

Is this a preference to homeowners, to owner-occupied, family-sized housing that is already there and opening those up for additional first-time purchases?

What is the preference?

SPEAKER_09

It's not stating a preference, it's stating a intent to look at opportunities for home ownership, affordable entry-level home ownership.

SPEAKER_15

And it could be a new development.

And those home ownership opportunities can be in either new development or existing housing stock, correct?

Cindy's head out there shaking.

SPEAKER_08

Satisfied Council Member Mosqueda?

SPEAKER_32

I think I'm just going to be a no at this point, but we'll work with you to make sure I fully understand it at the final round.

SPEAKER_08

So that was the final call for final discussion on Amendment D2.

It has been properly moved and seconded, and I will now call for a vote.

SPEAKER_19

I was just going to offer, although the clerk will have to advise a little bit procedurally, but one option available to you is to split this into two separate amendments.

Make amendment D2A to amend the policy that I can't read the number of yet.

Do D2A on MJP14 and D2B on the second policy.

Mr. Chair, I respect that, but I don't know what the consensus is.

SPEAKER_15

Whenever the air controller signal, arm signals are, I say no.

SPEAKER_08

There doesn't seem to be a consensus suggestion, Ms. Panucci.

So I'm going to remove that from the consensus package.

Thank you for your creative thinking.

Thank you, though.

So it has been properly moved and seconded that we vote on amendment D2.

We've ended further discussion, so I will now call for a vote.

All those in favor of Amendment D2, please signify by saying aye and raising your hand.

Aye.

Any opposed?

SPEAKER_31

No.

SPEAKER_08

That amendment is adopted on a 6-2 vote.

Mr. Whitson, I believe we have one amendment that is not part of the consent agenda, and that is related to the Roosevelt Residential Urban Village, which now we have made a series of choose-your-own-adventure choices, so you will lead us to water on which of these amendments we should adopt to be consistent with the previous votes that we've taken.

SPEAKER_09

Amendment d5a reflects the votes you previously took on changes to the Roosevelt urban village boundary and so I would recommend moving d5a so colleagues action on d5a Encapsulates the votes that we took on the Ravenna Cowan historic district

SPEAKER_08

as well as the vote we took on the 16th 17th avenue expansion of the urban village boundary.

So this amendment allows for mapping changes to be consistent with those two votes that we took one case in the affirmative one case in the negative.

Correct Mr. Whitson?

Correct.

Correct okay further questions on that colleagues?

Okay without further ado then I will call for a vote on amendment d5a and ask for your support.

Okay, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye and raising your hand.

SPEAKER_25

Aye.

SPEAKER_08

Any opposed?

Amendment D5A is adopted.

Mr. Whitson, I believe that concludes our amendments.

Do I have that correct?

Correct.

So I would like to therefore recommend that the committee adopt Council Bill 119443 as amended and the recommendation be sent to the March 18th City Council meeting.

Any final thoughts for final discussion, colleagues?

All those in favor, please signify by saying aye and raising your hand.

Aye.

Any opposed?

That passes unanimously.

Madam Clerk, the final agenda item.

SPEAKER_18

Agenda item three, Council Bill 119445 relating to land use and zoning for discussion and possible vote.

SPEAKER_08

Ms. Panucci, our Northgate TOD bill.

SPEAKER_18

I will turn this over to Mr. Krugman.

SPEAKER_28

So this one hasn't gotten very much discussion, and part of it, I think, has to do with its provenance.

Just briefly describe what the bill does and talk about how it's somewhat an artifact of a different time.

and then note some technical amendments that will have to be made to this at the time of the full council vote.

So what would Council Bill 119445 do?

It would create a new Seattle Mixed Northgate zone and development standards for that zone.

It would increase height and density in the Seattle Mixed Northgate area, which is sort of generally an area that's south of the Northgate Mall in the vicinity of the Northgate Transit Center.

And it would remove that zone from the Northgate overlay.

I think as the council members know, This isn't just the fact that this is a separate bill is in some ways an artifact of a time when the council wanted to preserve the option for faster action on the Northgate bill to coincide with a county RFP that RFP was reissued last year.

I think that the announcement from the county about who the successful RFP respondent might be will be made later this spring and the future development relies on this rezone occurring.

Council Member Juarez.

SPEAKER_08

Let the record reflect an opportunity was given to express support for zoning change in District 5 and Council Member Juarez passed on that opportunity.

I think that that was an excellent overview, Mr. Freeman.

I look to my colleagues to see if any of them have any questions related to this small bill to effectuate changes to build more affordable housing in the Northgate Urban Center.

SPEAKER_25

My only question is, may we vote?

SPEAKER_08

Yes.

So without further ado, I would ask that the committee recommend passage of Council Bill 119445 and the recommendation be sent to the March 18th City Council meeting.

Second.

Final discussion on this, folks.

All those in favor, please say aye and raise your hand.

Aye.

Any opposed?

That passes unanimously.

Colleagues, that concludes the three agenda items that we have in front of us.

Because we did not table any of our discussions, there's no need for us to have any further select committees on mandatory housing affordability.

It has been a pleasure to chair these 20 meetings with you over the last two years, and I'm grateful to you all for your dedication.

I look forward to having a final discussion on this at our full council meeting on March the 18th.

SPEAKER_22

Thank you, Richard.